Author: The Seattle Times: Northwest Voices

An egregious act

What our leaders lack in this day and age is common sense. Did Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna think he could get away with representing our Democratic, progressive state by filing his lawsuit on behalf of a very small minority of regressive, Stone Age Washingtonians? [“Washington joins lawsuit over mandate, page one, March 23.]

He has ruined his career and angered many of us into taking action to have him impeached. Further, he has advanced the demise of the Republican Party. Think, People! Don’t just react.

I urge everyone of you who would benefit from the health-care-reform bill to contact the governor and insist that she file the lawsuit against McKenna.

McKenna’s is a most egregious act, which in legal circles would be considered exceeding the scope of one’s employment. Yes, he was elected, but he was not elected governor and a careful reading of his duties to the state and his authorities concerning representation of the state is definitely in order.

As a former lawyer, I consider his actions typical of what has become the Republican Party’s continual undemocratic actions throughout President Obama’s first year in office. Republicans merely exists now to impede the Democratic Party without any subsequent guidance or protections for the middle class.

We must stop McKenna’s unilateral, unconstitutional, undemocratic action. We need this reform. We do not need this attorney general.

— Deborah Harten-Moore, Eatonville

A courageous act

Rob McKenna represents the majority of American people who understand that a society supported by burgeoning entitlements is unsustainable. Our Constitution was written to protect us from the government — not to allow it to control our private, personal decisions.

U.S. national debt combined with the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is approximately $117 trillion — before adding the monstrous health-care program. Democrats like to dragoon money from those who earn it and give it to those who don’t, but who will be holding the debt sack when China quits funding our shortfalls?

My beloved goddaughter will be paying for this myopic foolishness long after we who squandered her future are gone.

Our elected officials are present-time oriented and cannot consider history or contemplate the future. They exist in the here and now and only care about what makes them feel good in the moment. Playing Robin Hood with other peoples’ money provides instant gratification. They never consider the damage their inane spending and massive borrowing will eventually lead to.

Folks who choose to believe in this massive “entitlement” nonsense and support it are welcome to do so. However, my job is to fight it to my last breath.

— Jeffrey S. Howard, Redmond

Run, Rob, run

Rob McKenna should definitely run for governor of Idaho. Or if he likes a warmer climate, Florida.

Bless and keep Rob McKenna, far away from us.

— Richard Hudson, Lake Forest Park

Support your attorney general

Shame on all the attacks on Attorney General Rob McKenna. He is trying to do the job he was elected to do. He is standing up for the citizens of Washington to protect their rights. He is not against the whole health-care bill, but he is against the federal government forcing the citizens of this country to purchase a private product.

How is an unemployed person, trying to survive on limited funds, going to go out and pay for health insurance? How is a family barely getting by as it is going to afford another monthly bill, which no matter what your government says, is not going to be cheap?

Support your attorney general. He is the only one right now in our state government who cares about you.

— Richard Hill, Arlington

A shameless attempt

to gut health reform

Editor, The Times:

Shame on you, Attorney General Rob McKenna, for joining in this heartless lawsuit to gut health reform [“Washington joins lawsuit over mandate,” Times, page one, March 23].

It would be absurd, if it weren’t so tragic for so many, that our wealthy nation tolerates the rationing of health care according to means. It would be absurd, if it weren’t so heartbreaking, that instead of a nonprofit institution “standing between you and your doctor,” we permit a greedy industry, fat with profits, indifferent to its victims, and well able to purchase the protection of our legislators, to stand there.

If there are no mandates in this first, flawed effort to extend care and save the lives of many uninsured and underinsured Americans, many young, healthy people might opt out of a system they think they can do without, increasing the burden of costs on all of us.

Social Security payments are not optional; health insurance should not be optional, either. Humane exemptions and assistance are provided for those who cannot afford it.

I spend three months a year in one of those “socialist” European countries where people do not starve in the streets and no one is denied health care. Strangely, their skies have not fallen. They seem to think they are quite as free as any American. In fact, they think we’re nuts. Most Americans don’t have the privilege, or don’t take the opportunity, of traveling to other countries. They are easy to frighten with stupid fantasies of “government takeover.” But you have not that excuse.

The real government takeover in the U.S. has been done by big-money interests with a free hand to buy influence. Perhaps you’re happy with the recent Supreme Court endorsement of this practice.

— Julianne Nason, Seattle

He represents the state, not the governor

Thanks for reporting on Attorney General Rob McKenna’s intention to file a health-care-reform-bill lawsuit on our behalf. Thanks also for reporting that Gov. Chris Gregoire is opposed to this action.

It’s reported that Gregoire has said McKenna does not represent Washingtonians and she will be working toward obstructing his efforts. Actually, McKenna does represent Washingtonians, apparently better than Gregoire, Sen. Parry Murray and my representative, [Congressman Jim] McDermott. All are in favor of this really bad legislation instead of stepping backward and rewriting good legislation.

I do believe health care does need reform. We just need to make sure our elected representatives do a good job putting together an affordable and effective win-win-win package.

— Jason Colberg, Lake Forest Park

Not in my name

Dear Attorney General Rob McKenna: I find it deeply disturbing that you have undertaken, in my name and using my money, a lawsuit against the just-signed health-insurance-reform legislation. It seems to me that this is a special case: The general impact of this bill, and the clear need for reform, are such that it ought to take more than the singular whim of your partisanship to join. It ought, in fact, to be based on the will of those people in whose behalf you, presumably, consider yourself to be acting. With the ink on the bill barely dry, surely you can’t believe you have the sense of the state on this matter.

I’ve been a physician for 40 years. I’ve spent far too much time fighting insurers whose business model, as you must surely know, is to collect as much money from potential patients, and to return as little as possible to providers of health care.

Frankly, unlike most of my fellow surgeons, I’ve been in favor of a universal single-payer system for a long time. This bill falls short of my hopes, but it’s a much-needed beginning on the way to comprehensive coverage for those in need. Unilaterally to attempt to stop this hard-won progress, joining a highly partisan effort that smacks of the misguided Fox-fueled and deceitful rhetoric we’ve heard for over a year, is abhorrent.

I express my deep displeasure over your action, taken in my name most unwillingly.

— Sidney M. Schwab, Everett

Doing his duty

Wow. What a stunningly revealing comment from Gov. Chris Gregoire about Attorney General Rob McKenna’s decision to sue the federal government for its historic overstepping of constitutional authority.

“I don’t know who he represents. He doesn’t represent me.”

No, governor, he doesn’t represent you. Nor should he.

Anyone with a basic understanding of our state constitution should know the attorney general is elected by, works for and represents the legal interests of the citizens of Washington (the state, not the sycophants in the District of Columbia).

AG McKenna is doing so. It would be nice if the governor would do likewise.

— Dain Jones, Monroe

Consider our federal auto rules

There is a long list of things the federal government tells me I have to do, or buy. My car is a perfect example. Why doesn’t Attorney General Rob McKenna go after these abuses?

The pollution-control equipment adds thousands of dollars to the cost. The EPA mileage requirement adds thousands to the cost. The seat-belt requirement adds hundreds to the cost. If I don’t use the seat belt I get fined. If I disconnect any of the other equipment I get fined.

What is the difference between being required to buy health insurance and being required to buy all of the federal add-ons to my car?

Rather than being a Republican (partisan) lackey on this issue, why doesn’t the AG concentrate on doing the business of the state of Washington. He wasn’t elected to represent the national Republican Party!

— Stuart Creighton, Normandy Park

Look who’s running?

State Attorney General Rob McKenna has just announced that he’s running for governor. He didn’t do it in the usual way, with a press conference or a large public announcement, however. Instead, he filed suit against the health-care act, just passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama.

His lawsuit activates the Republican base, which fought health care just as hard as it fought Social Security and Medicare, both of which are so popular that they’re inviolate today. It puts him in the headlines. It raises his visibility. That’s what candidates seek.

It was a deft political move, aligning him (and with him, our state) with South Carolina, Utah, Texas, and a bunch of other notably red states. It ignores the fact that even Republicans get sick and require medical care, just like Democrats and independents. But who cares about facts when politics is the issue?

Congratulations, Mr. McKenna, on being the first to throw your hat into the ring for the next governor’s race.

— Brucce Barnbaum, Granite Falls

More important matters, governor

Maybe Gov. Chris Gregoire should look to see whom she represents.

Even though most agree that health-care reform is needed, polls have shown that the majority of Americans have not approved of the health-care bill Congress and the president have been forcing upon us.

Could it be that Attorney General Rob McKenna represents more people in the state than Gregoire represents. And why is Gregoire going to spend more of our money with a countersuit against the attorney general? Aren’t there more important issues that need her attention and our money — e.g., the cuts in services and taxes to fix our state’s current budget shortfall?

— Larry Brickman, Bellevue

AG has better things to do

As an owner of two small businesses and a father and grandfather, I respectfully but vehemently oppose Attorney General Rob McKenna’s decision to join the lawsuit against the health-care-reform bill just signed by the president.

Not only is this landmark legislation important to my businesses and family, I am appalled that the AG would choose to spend time and very precious state tax dollars fighting something the vast majority of Washingtonians support. It appears that he is using our tax dollars to promote his political aspirations within the Republican Party base. We expect more of our political leaders in this state.

— Rick Dortch, Bellevue

Bravo to McKenna

Bravo to Rob McKenna, Washington state attorney general.

Yes, McKenna is an elected state official and therefore represents the voters of Washington state, including Gov. Chris Gregoire. Her statement, “I don’t know who he represents. He doesn’t represent me,” is completely out of line. Using her logic, I can say the same about Gov. Gregoire, that she does not represent me.

McKenna is among the few Washington state elected officials who appear to actually be listening to the will of the people and representing us. Keep it up, Rob. We appreciate your work on our behalf.

— Mark Powell, Renton

A constitutional solution

Let me see if I got this right. Attorney General Rob McKenna, the state’s top lawyer, thinks it is unconstitutional for the federal government to require Americans to purchase health insurance, but it is perfectly OK for the feds to require us to pay into two government-run health-care programs (Medicare and Medicaid).

I guess McKenna would agree the only solution to the problem is to extend Medicare and/or Medicaid to all Americans — you know, so it’s constitutional and all that.

— Paul McDevitt, Seattle

Teddy would be proud

More than a century ago, then-President Theodore Roosevelt said of a young United States of America, “This will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless it is a good place for all of us to live in.”

Today he would have been proud of his successor, President Barack Obama, who signed into law the historic Health Care Reform Act, which ensures health-care benefits for 30 million uninsured Americans.

We can also be proud of the AARP and the American Medical Association for their politically important endorsements.

— Langdon S. Simons Jr., Seattle

More work to be done

I recently received a message from U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee saying with the signing of the health-care-reform bill “the kitchen is finished.” Well, the kitchen is definitely not finished!

To continue Inslee’s analogy, we have merely ordered some cabinets. Some very expensive cabinets, from suppliers who are not subject to antitrust laws. Cabinets whose cost will most certainly rise significantly and continuously as we try to pay off the loan.

And if our kitchen happens to have a couple of special problems, “pre-existing conditions,” then we must buy cabinets from the high-risk pool of suppliers, at even higher cost.

If we decide that we might try to get along without cabinets in our kitchen, then we will be fined! The legislation apparently does nothing to lower costs, but instead raises our taxes to subsidize the costs. We get a double whammy, our cabinets continue to rise in price, and our taxes rise to try to catch up.

The health-care legislation just passed certainly has some good points, but the lack of obvious cost controls will prove it ruinous to our economy. We need real competition in the health-care industry, competition that can only realistically be created with a publicly run health-care option, and removal of the antitrust exemption from the health-insurance industry.

Really “finish the kitchen,” Mr. Inslee!

— John S. Snow, Woodinville

Risks are always in play

Maureen O’Hagan’s story on raw milk was certainly interesting [“Is raw milk safe?” page one, March 21]. It did shed light on what sounds to be legitimate health risks related to the product.

But she seemed to peg raw-milk consumers as foolhardy risk-takers, playing “Russian roulette” with their health while believing in the “unscientific” claims made for the health benefits of the product.

The trouble with this is that health risks are always in play when relying on the American food-supply chain. And most often, these risks are being taken even as there is established science that categorically demonstrates the food being consumed is detrimental in all ways to your health.

Worse yet, the FDA regularly is either passive in its regulation of these products, or outright in support of them. Anyone familiar with the FDA’s sorry position on trans fats knows this, and would look to them last for a “scientific” determination of a product’s safety or efficacy.

So rather than present raw-milk drinkers as superstitious zealots prone to a belief in conspiracy theories, you could have gone another route with your story. You could have taken an opportunity to show the murky difficulty consumers face in making risk/benefit choices in the foods they eat when having to rely on the word of captured regulators.

The question for this story was why we let a few thousand people take a health risk for an unproven benefit? Maybe the better question to address is why do we regularly let millions of people make bad health choices while telling them they are making a healthy one? As they say, if you can get people to ask the wrong question, you don’t have to worry about the answer.

— Tom Cobb, Lynnwood

We lived on raw milk

I read the article on raw milk with amusement. We raised all our children on raw milk with never a bad tooth or broken bone among ’em. They lived with cows, chickens, hogs, and horses, and were, and still are, disgustingly healthy.

We are an old, fat couple with family histories fraught with health problems who have lived and eaten a great deal from our postage-stamp piece of property. We have people mad at us because we don’t have high cholesterol or diabetes.

I do not know what the answer is for you urban dwellers. Continue going to your Great Grub Temples, consuming their sanitized, sterilized, plastic-wrapped goods, I guess.

Here beyond the sidewalks we will be drinking milk straight from our cows, eating our own beef, enjoying bacon and eggs at breakfast, and I will remain the terror of the vegetable kingdom, ripping the ears off the corn, gouging the eyes out of potatoes, chopping the heads off cabbages, and ripping baby carrots from their beds and eating them alive.

— Mark Aamot, Custer

Concern for the bottom line

Jeff Brown had better hope that he was badly misquoted. Otherwise, he sounds more than a little disingenuous.

At the very least, he espouses a naive and ignorant knowledge of the concerns surrounding and the historical reasons for pasteurization. At the worst, he is a cynical smart aleck whose concern is not really the Christian line, but his bottom line, wherein he would rather sell expensive product to other foolish disciples — and their children — than demonstrate concern about the safety of his product.

“Everything God designed is good for you.” Oh please. God presumably is also responsible for cobra venom, cyanide, botulism, and the Ebola virus. Can’t recommend eating them, though. And, oh yes, He created the E. coli bacterium, too, didn’t He?

— Alan E. Marsh, Kirkland

Never again

When I was in my twenties, I came down with an infection of campylobacter two times. My doctor could not figure out how I was picking this bacteria up. Finally she looked at me and asked, “You don’t drink raw milk, do you?” I answered in the affirmative and the source was found.

I’m now in my fifties and can say that I’ve never been that sick before or since. I’m a firm believer in eating whole foods, but I will never drink raw milk again. It’s simply not worth the risk.

— Debby Erickson, Edmonds

An ill-conceived lawsuit

Editor, The Times:

I am dismayed that an elected official in the state of Washington would attempt to sabotage national efforts to improve access to health care [“Washington joins lawsuit over mandate,” Times, page one, March 23].

Washington already elects a Legislature that understands the importance of access to health care for our residents, and especially those most vulnerable. Washington state is especially generous to children, prioritizing state-supported children’s programs during a difficult budget year.

Despite this clear mandate from the state’s voters, Attorney General Rob McKenna chooses legal maneuvers whose only purpose is to delay or disrupt health-care reform. Does McKenna want to prolong the devastating health and financial consequences of many Washingtonians when insurance coverage is unaffordable? Does he really want to watch as Washington’s children go un-immunized and lack access to preventive health care because parents cannot afford the ever-increasing premiums needed to fund the profits of health insurers?

I want nothing to do with this ill-conceived lawsuit. If McKenna feels strongly that health-care reform must be stopped, then I ask that he resign and use his own funds for attempts to reverse this historic legislation.

— Kathleen Lange, Seattle

He represents me

I read that Gov. Chris Gregoire claims Attorney General Rob McKenna doesn’t represent her. He does represent me and, madam, there are plenty more people like me.

We pay our taxes (through the nose, I might add) and I am delighted to have an AG who not only knows the Constitution but recognizes and acts when it has been blatantly violated.

This is the closest I have been to feeling ashamed to be an American under such flawed leadership that is seemingly ignorant of the rights contained in the U.S Constitution.

— Elaine Solberg, Shoreline

The good of the people

State Attorney General Rob McKenna, who has shown admirable commitment to consumer issues and who for years has been able to win support as a Republican in liberal King County, is not serving Washingtonians well in his promise to sue the federal government over its newly passed health-care bill.

As McKenna targets arguably the most controversial element of the bill (the individual mandate to purchase insurance), I fear McKenna isn’t being brave enough.

He should go after such horrid “socialist” institutions like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs. He should stop all funding of our public schools, and he should work to privatize our fire departments. Ditto to the Department of Transportation.

Most of all, he should remind himself that his own party introduced an individual mandate when “HillaryCare” was being debated in the 1990s. Where was his passion for the good of the people then?

If McKenna believes his promised actions are truly championing the people, then this smart, well-spoken, effective public servant is every bit as delusional as the rest of the GOP.

— Paul West, Seattle

Looking for doers, not delayers

This is no time for the legal profession to look for unnecessary work. Any challenges should first be discussed by the appropriate parties. If agreement cannot be reached, then legal suit is of course an option.

This new [health-care] law did not just happen; it has been a work in progress for a considerable time. It confronts a problem that without action will become out of control if, in fact, that is not already the case. Walking away or unnecessary delay are no longer options that are worth considering.

The law is just a step in the process. Now comes the important part: We must actually implement it and refine it until it does the job that has been unattended to for centuries.

We the people will have our say in 2010, and we are not looking for delayers, we are looking for doers. May the healthy dialogue continue. May that be followed by actual progress.

I love it when politicians actually try to do something. It happens so rarely.

— Hugh Coleman, Kelso

McKenna’s constituents

To former state Attorney General Chris Gregoire: Have you been out of that office so long that you have lost your perspective?

The good people of this state once elected you to that office. When you held it, you recognized the need to protect Washington citizens’ legal and constitutional rights from any, and all violators, including the federal government.

Without arguing the unbelievably cruel and burdensome nature of the health-care bill as passed, will you really try to tell the voters that it is not the job of the attorney general of this state to protect us from all attacks? Do we need to include you in that list? How arrogant!

“He has, in my opinion, a duty to consult with me,” said Gregoire. His constituents are the only ones he has to answer to!

— Ron Highfill, Lacey

Where’s McKenna’s mandate?

It is outrageous that Washington’s attorney general is using our tax dollars to try to reverse the landmark health-care legislation Congress just passed.

Rob McKenna does not have a public mandate to do this. He is using his office to express a partisan, ideological viewpoint that is shared by all the Republicans in Congress who tried to obstruct the passage of health-care reform.

He should be enforcing the laws of Washington state and trying to protect its citizens, not undermining the prospect of coverage for the many thousands of people who are unable to get health insurance.

— Carole Glickfeld, Seattle

Proud of the AG

I just watched the evening TV report with Gov. Chris Gregoire undercutting Attorney General Rob McKenna for his plans to challenge the constitutionality of our latest federal handiwork, the health-care bill. The governor asked who McKenna represented? She asserted he didn’t represent her.

Well, I believe they both take an oath to stand up for our state constitution, which also stands in support of the federal Constitution. Our AG is also elected in his own right. I strongly denounce our governor for her acquiescence in simply accepting the federal health-care mandate.

Our Constitution separates us as a nation under the rule of law, rather than a people subservient to the whim of an emperor, or king, or governor. If there is a constitutional issue to be examined, I for one am proud of my attorney general for seeking to test this remarkable overreach of the federal government.

Long live the American Constitution and those who champion it. Let’s all seek to shorten the career of Gov. Gregoire and every political opportunist who fails to uphold our nation.

— Mark Sussman, Bellevue

Lone-wolf decision

Up until now, Rob McKenna was a Republican I would have possibly voted for in the next election, but no more. His lone-wolf decision to spend taxpayer money fighting the health-care bill has taken him out of consideration for whatever office he asks for.

If he doesn’t like the bill, fine. He can fight it on his own time and with his own political war chest. Is it possible to enjoin him from using taxpayer money?

— Denise R. Ottoson, Seattle

Shame on you, governor

In connection with the lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of the health-care bill, Gov. Chris Gregoire, referring to Attorney General Rob McKenna, is quoted as saying, “I don’t think he represents a million and a half Washingtonians who will be helped by this.”

In other words, never mind the Constitution, the end justifies the means!

Shame on you, governor. You don’t represent me.

— Henry Kroeger, Redmond

Directed by the machine

It is unfortunate and very troubling when our attorney general, Rob McKenna, takes his direction not from the people he is supposed to represent but, instead, from the national Republican machine. It is obvious that this is just another delaying tactic by the Republican Party to try and prevent the Obama administration from achieving this victory, whether it is good for U.S. citizens or not.

First they spread lies of death panels, then they try to convince veterans they will be forced to give up their health care and finally, after many more lies, they resort to this.

By going along with this vile tactic, McKenna has shown his true colors. It should be obvious to all that McKenna cares only for his political career — both here in the state of Washington as well as the other Washington in the future — and not a wit for the citizens of this state.

McKenna will never receive another vote from this Democrat.

— Robert Oberlander, Issaquah

There is still time for unity

Attorney General Rob McKenna can rest assured that his health insurance is not at risk as he announces his intention to join a lawsuit to overturn elements of the health-care legislation.

What is deeply distressing about the debate and the actions to which this issue has given way is that instead of our representatives defining and defending our common cause and shared destinies — they are holding these values hostage in exchange for re-election slogans. The quality of public discourse is bad enough, but what may be even worse are the intentions that underlie the communication: the intention to further fractionalize our nation; to set us against one another; to create discordance and disruption.

To McKenna: There is still time; time to be a force of unity — to let the will of the people stand long enough to be tested. And to speak on behalf of our common purpose as one great nation, “under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

— Jill Blair, Seattle

Say it ain’t so, John McCain

It’s nice that in a world of so much rapid change, there’s one constant in modern life — no matter what it is, the Republicans are agin’ it [“For Republicans, fight isn’t over,” CloseUp, March 23].

However, it’s very disappointing to see a man of John McCain’s stature — someone I consider a war hero and a statesman — vowing to destroy the minutes-old health-care bill and see it repealed before he even gets a chance to see whether or not it might help his constituents in the state of Arizona.

Arizona is hurting economically, and I wonder how many of McCain’s fellow Arizonans can actually afford health care without a little help?

— Carol Lake, Kirkland

We should have spoken up

I’m sorry that I and others like myself didn’t speak up more about our support of health-care reform. But apparently it is difficult to win the minds of American citizens when competing with people who yell and scream hysterically.

It’s almost as if one side said, “1+1=2” and the other side cried and bellowed, “No, no, 1+1=3. Everyone knows that. If everyone started thinking otherwise, the world would end.” Then a survey was taken, and the majority of people said, “1+1=3.”

If there had been nice, thought-provoking debate on the issue, and the other side still prevailed, then I would still be upset, but not disillusioned. Fear, and the threat of fearful things, is pretty powerful, apparently. I really hate to think the American people have stopped thinking and started putting their faith in fear.

I personally have little, if anything, to gain from health-care reform. I have some of the best health insurance around. But I know health-care reform isn’t about me. It’s about others less fortunate. I’m not Christian, but, if I remember correctly back when I was, that used to be part of the Christian doctrine. But things change apparently.

— Robert L. Stewart, Renton

Polls can be manipulated

The only polls about health care I received (via phone) were so heavily biased and leading that even if you tried to answer the questions to reflect support for universal health care, it would look as if you were against it.

The election of President Obama reflected the true indication that the majority of Americans do want health-care reform, and being that Democrats don’t always act like sheep, they bicker and argue over details. A start has been made, and details and posturing and fine tuning will continue for years to come, but we have made a compassionate nod to those who aren’t always fortunate enough to have a job/income to have a decent chance of good health care.

Do I know all the details of the bill? No, but neither do those who were whipped up into angry mobs. One can only go on basic humanitarian principles.

— Brian Hogan, Kent

Call it the ‘Netanyahu incident’

As a Jewish American and an Israeli, I challenge Charles Krauthammer’s minimizing of the U.S. reaction to the “Biden incident” [“U.S. reaction to Biden incident was overreaction,” Opinion, March 22]. For starters, we might want to call it the “Netanyahu incident.”

For most of the world, east Jerusalem is occupied territory, just like the West Bank, and all settlements over the Green Line are illegal. It is absurd to see as confidence-building the ongoing confiscation of Palestinian land as state land and its subsequent construction for Jewish settlement.

Even a conservative nationalist like Ari Shavit wrote recently in the Israeli Ha’aretz newspaper that “if a sane Israel does not wake up, it will be defeated by the metastasizing of the occupation and the lack of the central government’s ability to stop it.”

It is time to set aside the tired and useless mantras heard by Krauthammer and members of AIPAC that “the Israelis have done everything for peace while the Palestinians have done nothing.” I am reminded of the (Hebrew) anti-road-rage bumper sticker one sees on cars in Israeli: “Don’t be right, be smart.”

— Simcha Shtull, Seattle

Politicians didn’t get it right

Editor, The Times:

Regarding the insurance albatross the politicians just hung around our neck [“Historic health-care overhaul passes,” Seattle Times, page one, March 22]:

An estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually will result from 23 million still uninsured nine years out;

Millions of middle-income people will be pressured to buy commercial policies that cost up to 9.5 percent of income but cover an average of only 70 percent of medical expenses;

Insurance firms [which give no care to anyone] will get at least $447 billion in taxpayer money in subsidies;

The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net hospitals;

People with employer-based coverage will be locked into their plan’s limited network of providers;

Health-care costs will continue to skyrocket, like they did in Massachusetts;

There are loopholes in the pre-existing conditions regulations;

Women’s reproductive rights will be further eroded.

We needed and still need a single-payer, equal-access-for-all plan. Physicians for A National Health Program and United for Single Payer locally will continue to work on this until we get it right.

— Linda Jansen, Seattle

Thanks, Washington Reps

I just want to say how grateful I am to our Washington representatives for voting “yes” on health-care reform. The bill is not perfect, but I believe that we had to start somewhere.

I have a friend with diabetes who this bill will help immediately. I am proud of our president, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and all the representatives who voted for it. This is a historic occasion.

— Anne Steiner, Seattle

No freedom of choice

As the health-care bill is going through the last hurdles, one fact that remains is that it does not give us the American value: “freedom of choice.”

All of us except a few will have to purchase for-profit private insurance. The ones who are below a certain income are forced to accept Medicaid as their insurance.

None of the plans available guarantee that everybody can see the doctor or health-care professional of their choice, because some doctors do not take Medicare or Medicaid patients and most private plans have a preferred-provider list.

So the work ahead will be to make the benefits afforded people over 65 the minimum health benefit for all, so decent coverage no longer is a privilege only for the ones who can afford it, or those who work for the right company.

Second, we need to give everybody a choice of their current plan/coverage or buying into Medicare (a public option).

Finally, we have to mandate all doctors and health-care professionals to take all plans and give these professionals the ability to negotiate reimbursement rates.

Then we all will have freedom of choice and decent health coverage.

— Ruth Knagenhjelm, Normandy Park

Put up or shut up

Now that each and every Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives has voted against health-care reform, it is time for them, and their supporters, to put up or shut up.

If they truly feel the “free” market and for-profit health insurers will serve them better, then they have a moral responsibility to immediately withdraw from the congressional health-insurance program or the “socialist” Medicare and Medicaid programs.

I just hope they aren’t too shocked by the 20-40 percent annual premium increases those of us lucky enough to be able to afford private health insurance (and with no pre-existing conditions) have been stuck with.

— William M. Woods, Seattle

The seed is planted

I honor Democrats who worked so hard to pass health-care reform on Sunday.

Yes, the bill is a pale shadow of what it ought to be. Health care should be a public service, like our fire and police departments. It should be a single-payer federal program for every citizen, based on the realization that health care is part of the right to life. In a civilized nation, no citizen should profit from another’s illness.

Yet despite the bill’s deficiency, Democrats who voted for it deserve respect for their courage, especially Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who faced a tsunami of disdain. She and her party fought off a right-wing campaign of lies, threats, fear-mongering and hate speech such as we have not seen since the civil-rights struggle of the’60s.

But compassion triumphed over hardness of heart. The seed is planted. May the vine flourish.

— Fred LaMotte, Steilacoom

Mandates and rights

Danny Westneat’s column on health-care mandates [“Free to have health care for all,” NWSunday, March 21] is a thoughtful and balanced discussion of the issue.

I agree that while many of us recoil instinctively at being compelled to purchase health insurance, it’s necessary to make the system work.

I was also disappointed to read U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert’s wildly irresponsible rhetoric suggesting that people would be sent to jail for not buying health insurance.

What Westneat does not mention is that for many years now we have been compelled to buy automobile insurance. I have not heard complaints from tea-party activists about this infringement of our freedom. The law may not mandate jail time directly for not carrying auto insurance, but the fine is steep, and if you don’t pay your traffic fines, you can certainly go to jail.

I pay for auto insurance annually but have made only one claim in 16 years, and there was a substantial deductible. However, I recognize that it’s wisest to at least carry liability, which is what the law requires.

On the other hand, I need to see my doctor three or four times a year, and have several medications I have to take. Paying for health insurance will save me a lot more money than paying for auto insurance.

— Marc Szeftel, Burien

Yes, we want it

Republican leaders Sen. Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader John Boehner and Karl Rove are making me sick as I listen to them talk about health care. If I hear one more time that “the American people” don’t want this bill, I’m going to throw up.

What about the millions of Americans who do want this bill to pass, who do want uninsured Americans to be covered, who do want Americans not to lose their coverage or be bankrupted because they get sick?

McConnell says it will be “Armageddon” if it passes and will “destroy the country.” On ABC’s “This Week,” [former Bush White House adviser] Rove said it will be an “economic disaster.”

What about the economic disaster of people losing their homes and savings due to illness or going to the emergency room when they’re sick because they don’t have insurance to pay for a doctor visit?

“Armageddon”? “Economic disaster”? Really? This absurd hyperbole that passes for debate is what will destroy this country, not the health-care bill.

— Dan Haeck, Federal Way

City’s right to tackle this problem

I am pleased the city of Seattle, which boasts of being a walkable, pedestrian-friendly place, has finally begun to enforce its own laws protecting the rights of pedestrians against the rampant intrusion of commercial signboards on public sidewalks [“Sidewalk signs pit retailers against city,” NWSunday, March 21].

Unfortunately, the city has been lax on this for so long that such obstructions have reached epidemic proportions. Almost every commercial district in Seattle is now forested with such sidewalk-blocking signage.

According to The Times’ article, the city will not act without a specific complaint against a particular sign. But with hundreds — maybe thousands — of such illegal placards sprouted throughout town, how can an aggrieved pedestrian even begin to tackle the problem?

I want all of the illegal signs off our sidewalks.

Can’t the shop owners — and real-estate agents — come up with other means of advertising without violating pedestrian rights of way? Commerce somehow thrives in all the other jurisdictions, which dutifully protect the rights of their pedestrians. Why not here?

— Russell Scheidelman, Seattle

Vote ‘yes’ for clean water

Sunday’s article on the proposed legislation to boost Washington state’s tax on oil and chemicals was a balanced report [“Lobbying at fever pitch over plan to boost oil tax,” NWSunday, March 21]. I am writing to argue in favor of this bill’s passage.

Stormwater pollution is a clear and present danger. I spend a considerable amount of time in, around and under the surface of Puget Sound. Runoff does immediate damage to our neighborhoods, streams, rivers, shorelines and ecosystem. Imagined disaster scenarios pale by comparison.

I urge the Legislature to vote “yes” for clean water.

— Daniel Sloan, Seattle

Money needed for cleanup

Millions of gallons of petroleum, pesticides and toxic chemicals wash up into Puget Sound every year. It’s like a slow, leaky oil spill with no end in sight.

The Clean Water Act of 2010 will tax the No. 1 source of stormwater pollution in our state and will bring much-needed revenues to clean up toxic stormwater runoff. The estimated $100 million per year will fund shovel-ready projects such as, in my area, regional detention facilities in the Forbes basin in Kirkland.

It is also a significant job creator. Think about how many jobs this will create if 75 jobs were created from $5 million the state recently received to fund three stormwater-related projects.

Even if this tax were passed on to consumers, as opponents are saying, the impact would be just a few cents per gallon, according to the Department of Revenue. I do not mind paying a little more knowing it will be used to clean up Puget Sound and make our waters healthier for our wildlife and ourselves.

I seriously hope our legislators pass this bill during this special session. I urge them to support this bill for job creation, local government relief and clean water.

— Yvonne Wang, Kirkland

Toxins in the water

I love Puget Sound. Among the reasons I moved to Ballard was to be within close proximity of the Sound. It is uplifting just to gaze at it. The Sound might look pristine, but toxins lurk in its waters. Many of these poisons enter the water through storm-drain pollutants.

Yet we have a chance turn this situation around in The Clean Water Act of 2010, now before the Legislature. It would add a relatively small — but vital — extra sum of cash to aid in funding water-related cleanup projects.

The original hazardous substances bill approved by voters back in 1988 has been helping to fund such projects. The tax rate has not been raised since 1988 and needs to be.

I am dismayed that oil bigwigs from out of the area have been flown in to lobby our Legislature against the bill. The bill will create local jobs, and will go a long way to improving the health of Puget Sound and waterways throughout the state.

Right here at Carkeek Park, a project on Venema Creek would improve the quality of water flowing into Pipers Creek, which in turn enters the Sound. Thanks in part to local schoolchildren, after a long absence salmon now return to Pipers Creek each autumn to spawn — a glorious spectacle indeed.

But pollutants from the street, which enter Pipers and Venema creeks through storm drains, threaten to disrupt the salmon cycle and lay waste to this success story of salmon recovery. If the bill fails or is not voted on, local governments — strapped for money — will need to pay for these projects but lengthy delays will occur. For all of us and for Puget Sound, we can no longer afford to delay.

— Mark D. Blitzer, Seattle

We need a just and family-friendly policy

I am writing in support of the tens of thousands of immigrants and allies who marched on Washington, D.C., to demand immigration reform [“Rally seeks to revive immigration action,” news, March 22].

The attempt by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to tie legalization to tougher measures to “secure the border” is wrong. Adding more guns, helicopters and walls will not improve the U.S. economy. In fact, studies show that the legalization of undocumented workers can result in $1.5 trillion in economic growth over 10 years.

I am a white woman and a kindergarten teacher, working in a Spanish-English dual-language program in Seattle. I do the work because I believe we need to be very intentional about building bridges across race, culture and language and teach children to know and love themselves. Every day I am inspired by their ability to grow and work through issues, and to enjoy each other’s friendship.

I worked in immigration law for eight years before teaching, and heard many stories of immigrants and their families that broke my heart. Almost all of the immigrants I talked to were mistreated by immigration officers, immigration judges and left to fend for themselves without lawyers in an incredibly complex legal system.

We need to keep people’s faces, families and lives front and center as we discuss policy. This is an inhumane system and it perpetuates centuries of power and oppression.

Please join me in calling for a more just and loving policy that helps keep families together.

— Delila Leber, Seattle

Amounts to ‘copy-catism’

Editor, The Times:

Tacoma already has a Dale Chihuly “glass house” [“Grand plan to remake Seattle Center fizzling,” page one, March 19]. Trying to out-Chihuly Tacoma is copy-catism, redundant and unimaginative.

Seattle and Tacoma have competed since their foundings, but we should take a regional view instead of merely competing and build something new — not another version of what our region already has.

As to open space, Seattle Center now has magnificent open spaces — the fountain, the skatepark, the peace and sculpture gardens bordering Denny and Broad streets, the covered walkways, the splendid new theater commons and the many quaint and lovely walkways into the Center.

We use Seattle Center often. [Taking] the grandchildren on the monorail, watching Seattle U. basketball at KeyArena, eating at surrounding restaurants, going to fundraisers at Fisher Pavilion and watching “Book-it” Theater with our book club. At every event — all after dark — the center has sparkling lights, is filled with people and we feel festive and safe.

— Gail Brilling, Woodinville and Merrily Applewhite, Seattle

It is fun, it is free and it is what a park should be

Perhaps the biggest drawing card Seattle Center has is the fountain. On a warm — sometimes on a not-so-warm day — people congregate and watch as children and family members try to dodge the fountain and often fail. Almost all the players get soaked to the spectators enjoyment.

It is fun, it is free and this is what a park should be! A park where the public participates and watches is the ideal entertainment for a great many people. This is the kind of thing that makes a park interesting and beloved.

The Chihuly exhibit is of interest, of course, but it is not necessarily for everyone. The museum would be built at great cost. The light will shine brightly through the bent, twisted and multicolored glass, but how many times a year would a family pay to look at it?

The museum would be a bad investment and we should find something that interests children. Whatever interests children invariably interest parents and usually the general public. It should be free — or almost free!

— Florence Evans, Normandy Park

Can’t promote private business on public land

Regarding the proposal to build a museum to, by and for Dale Chihuly at Seattle Center: Seattle residents can agree to disagree about how schlocky, kitsch and banal Chihuly’s work is and whether the Northwest isn’t saturated with his industrial “art” that comes off his assembly line like so many Toyotas.

However, the compelling issue is whether our public parks are going to be used to promote a private enterprise. Regardless of the rent the city might receive from Chihuly, the biggest benefits will accrue to Chihuly himself in the form of publicity and sales.

If we’re going to lease public park land to a private business, we might as well auction it off to all comers and see if we can make some real money.

— Don Glickstein, Seattle

Keep the Fun Forest fun

Seattle doesn’t need a Chihuly building at Seattle Center. There are already so many glass museums throughout the country that it has gotten to be an “old hat” — and the one we have in Tacoma has next to no appeal at all. Really, does any glass museum attract a broad group of visitors?

I was born and raised in Seattle since 1956. The best use by far of Seattle Center’s Fun Forest area is for rides. The only reason people stopped going is because the prices got so expensive — $5 for a three-minute ride and not many families can afford that.

Just look at the lines of people that have driven an hour to the Puyallup Fair for rides — all income groups and a large age-span, 5- to 50-year-olds at least, are there.

Kids need a place to experience the thrill of a ride. So, at least for now, why not put new rides back in place and spend a little money subsidizing them to keep it affordable. It’ll also help much-needed vendor sales in the food court. Promote the idea through media and schools and sell books of tickets at area stores like they do for the Puyallup Fair.

At least give it a try for a year until the economy picks up. The space is ready to go and who knows, maybe even the permits [for the rides] are still current?

— Cathy Schmidt, Issaquah

Sen. Rosa Franklin sets the record straight

I would like to correct the record regarding The Times’ editorial, “Time for Democrats to widen the fold,” Opinion, March 18].

First and foremost, my presentation of Senate Bill 6250 was in no way “a case of horse-trading for a vote,” as the editorial implied. That should be clear to anyone familiar with my votes on the budget — both before and after I presented the bill.

In both cases, I voted against the budget that the majority of my colleagues supported because I feel that a general sales tax makes an already regressive tax system worse.

Second, no one “allowed” me to offer an income-tax proposal. The fact is that I have sponsored legislation to create a state income tax every year since 2003 — when the Gates Commission first recommended it. I will continue to further this dialogue for as long as it takes because I believe restructuring our system of taxation is in the best interest of our state.

In this case, I was asked to present an amended version of my original bill in an effort to continue the dialogue at the legislative level in order to create more open discussion for planning to help address a more fair and sustainable budget.

An income tax is only one in a series of needed changes recommended by the Gates Commission. I have sponsored bills for all of them and have consistently advocated for passage. Should The Times wish to talk to me instead of demonizing me and my colleagues, I am open for a conversation now and have always been.

The Times’ dismissive characterization of my efforts to propose an income tax serves no one — least of all its readers. Washingtonians need an open dialogue and honest discussion, not a competition of who can sound the most derisive.

I would like to request The Times’ assistance in helping to educate Washingtonians about our tax structure. This is what is needed: unfettered, unbiased information.

— Sen. Rosa Franklin. D-South Tacoma

Do the math: Sen. Tom is increasing taxes

While Rodney Tom, D-Medina, should be commended for not voting for the increased sales tax, it should be noted that he, as a member of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, has voted for eight out of eight [tax] measures since Feb. 15 — totaling more than $1 billion in new taxes or fees over the next 10 years.

Noteworthy as well, Sen. Tom has voted 19 out of 21 times to increase taxes or fees over the next 10 years to the mighty tune of $9.2 billion! This is not making “structural-spending changes” nor reducing “the footprint of government” as suggested in The Times’ editorial.

These tax and fee increases are outrageous! Beware, the huge tax-increase amendments have not even come up for a vote in the Senate and might possibly appear in the dark of night or on Sunday when no one is looking.

— Teresa Holland, Seattle

What would Jesus do?

Yay for the nuns! [“Nuns’ support for health-care bill shows church split, Seattletimes.com, March 17]. They’re following the path less traveled in pursuit of clear conscience.

Sister Simone Campbell in an NPR interview said “our perspective is it promotes life by giving 30 million people in our country access to health care when we know that 45,000 people die every year because they don’t have access to health care.”

We are the people who work day in day out with people who don’t have health insurance, with people who can’t get care and with people who are suffering because of the injustice within our system. And for us, the mandate — what we see as the mandate of Jesus in the gospel — is to respond to people in need.

These nuns have asked the question all Christians must ask: What would Jesus do? They’ve not covered their ears, constricted their hearts or shied away when the answer came back loud and clear. You go, Sisters!

— Darcy Wright, Gig Harbor

Baby steps toward ‘historic vote’

“Hurling toward historic vote” [page one, March 19] was the headline in Friday’s Seattle Times. It is bad enough that Seattle has been stuck with a daily newspaper that is much more conservative than the city’s population — The Times endorsed George W. Bush, periodically proclaims “the merits” of doing away with the inheritance tax and condemns the health-care package — but can’t The Times at least separate reporting from editorial opinion?

Are we really “hurling?” This is a health-care debate that has been raging in this country for the past year — to the point that most people are sick to death of hearing about the issue. “Hurling” makes it sound like it has all happened so fast — a view surely held only by insurance-company profiteers and the legislators they have purchased.

Ask the 46 million Americans who live — and die — without health insurance whether the passage of health reform is coming at a blistering pace.

The proper headline should have been: “Finally a vote on health care.”

— Travis Penn, Seattle

Paddy responsible for centuries of conflict in Ireland

Editor, The Times:

I know that Wednesday, St. Patrick’s Day, was a great excuse for most young Americans to go out drinking and have fun — safely, I hope. But in Thursday’s Seattle Times there was a blurb about how St. Patrick introduced Christianity to Ireland [“St. Paddy’s Day,” Newsline, March 18].

Should we really be celebrating the person who may be at the root of centuries of conflict and of thousands of Irish deaths because of arguments over whose “brand” of Christianity is “right?” Isn’t St. Patrick responsible for a great deal of human suffering?

I do not think we should celebrate in his name at all. Instead, let’s celebrate the vernal equinox — it’s just a few days later — when the hours of daylight and darkness are the same, promising longer days to come! We could celebrate the promise of spring and the natural part of the cycle of reproduction. We all enjoy springtime and our young adults can have just as much fun drinking green beer — symbolizing spring’s green leaves.

Think about the traditions which you celebrate blindly and without much thought. Use your reason and logic; Why are you doing this? Look at the results of these traditions and then consider throwing them away and creating new traditions, which do not celebrate prejudice or death.

— Jeff Wedgwood, Issaquah

Oh, go pinch yourself

Concerning The Times’ promotion of “pinching of no-green wearing misanthropes” [“An Irish pub crawl for St. Patrick’s Day”, NWFriday, March 12], a person cannot be called a misanthrope for not wearing green.

The misanthropes are the people who think that it’s fun to pinch other people. As a person of Irish descent, I abhor the tawdry and cheap celebration of a supposed saint that has no relation to actual Irish tradition. A bunch of drunken brawlers — most of whom are not Irish — do no credit to Patrick.

But endorsing schoolyard bullying is a new low. It’s bad enough that on this day each year children have to endure this juvenile version of the inquisition, but do you really want a bunch of drunks running around pinching people?

— Phil Fagerholm, Seattle

Facts show stellar performance

It’s annoying to follow the government and compliant media accounts day after day about the dangerous and unreliable cars made by Toyota [“Looking skyward to unravel Toyota’s woes,” page one, March 17].

In light of the facts, a comparison of complaints by consumers of Ford, GM and Toyota vehicles during the last 10 years shows Toyota the most reliable car by far — based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data.

In 2000, GM received 12,000 consumer complaints, Ford received 14,000 and Toyota received 2,000. By 2008, complaints on all autos had fallen to below the 2,000 [complaints] level, and although a recent spate of complaints has put Toyota up near 2,000 again, this is where they have always been!

In a recent Consumer Reports auto issue, GM and Ford ranked near the bottom in overall scores for the past three years. While the improvement in very recent American cars must be celebrated, it should be remembered that Toyota now competes with us — we the taxpayer owners of GM. Could there be a possible conflict of interest here in the sudden zeal to tar Toyota?

— Cathie Whitesides, Seattle

Toyota should be more like an episode of ‘CSI’

The failure of Toyota to adequately explain the systemic failures occurring in some of their automobiles is an example of terrible corporate behavior and irresponsibility. The company has consistently been defensive and unwilling to share details of the investigation, insisting the problem is a minor mechanical deficiency.

We have all seen the photographs of the wreckage of an aircraft, painstakingly reassembled on some hangar floor and the dogged determination of the investigators working to determine what caused such devastation. The science of forensics is so de rigueur on TV programs that Toyota executives should watch a few episodes of “CSI” or “House” and learn what the audience is attuned to.

Have they examined the time of day, weather conditions, proximity to high radiation including microwave and aircraft radar, production documentation of components, wiring harnesses, board assembly and the countless minutiae that defines the nature and success or failure of high technology?

Perhaps Toyota’s failure is emblematic of the problems of many corporate entities that simply take the consumer for granted. Marketing and media are not the keys to profitability and reputation.

— Brian Grad, Bremerton

No one needs a pound of pot

Editor, The Times:

Now that I see Steve Sarich was abusing the law and being greedy — probably selling for profit — I don’t have as much sympathy for him [“How much medical pot is too much?” page one, March 17]. So it was an illegal operation under the guise of medicine, obviously.

I don’t understand why the amounts people are allowed to have are so large? I don’t smoke anymore, but do you know how much a pound of pot is?

This medical-marijuana business is shady, I believe. They should just make it legal, taxed and regulated at normal stores — for medicine or recreation. No one needs to always have a keg of Budweiser or a fully stocked bar around the house and no one needs a pound of pot.

I am outspoken about a lot of things I don’t like, but I don’t break the laws I wish to see changed. Too bad people were injured in this event and still feel upset about the militarized response. I still hope for the basic laws to be changed.

— Brian Caldwell, Everett

Legalize to avoid more incidents in Mexico and at home

A home invasion and shootout in Kirkland and an American consular official and her husband shot in their car in Mexico with their baby left crying in the back seat [“Danger signs apparent before Mexico attacks,” News, March 16]. What else do we need before we start looking at the economics that fuel the marijuana trade?

Keeping pot illegal just makes it more expensive because you have to pay a lot more to motivate businesspeople to risk jail to sell it to you. All that cash attracts competition that is then expressed through the barrel of a gun. Let’s remember the lessons of Prohibition, which attempted to ban a substance far more damaging to health and society: alcohol.

Let’s change our policies about marijuana and put it on the same footing as alcohol — regulated, taxed and far cheaper — which will take the drug lords out of the business. Repealing Prohibition ended the gang wars in Chicago.

Let’s decriminalize marijuana and end the gun battles in Mexico as well as here at home.

— Mark Nassutti, Kirkland

Gun trafficking to blame

Commenting on the level of drug violence in Juarez, Mexico, The Seattle Times’ editorial board says, “These gruesome tallies are the byproduct of a lethal industry that satisfies U.S. appetites” [“A war close to home,” Opinion, March 16].

The president of Mexico agrees; Felipe Calderón says that little will change as long as the United States continues to make gun purchases so easy. He knows that odds are 9-to-1 that the weapons used in Saturday’s killing of American consulate workers were purchased in the United States.

Now the NRA lobbyists will tell us the problem is that the strict gun-control laws in Mexico leave honest Mexicans defenseless against the criminal element of their society. However, according to a report published in The Seattle Times on Feb. 7, one is more than three times as likely to be murdered in the capital of the United States — where guns are easily accessible to law-abiding citizens — than in Mexico City — where there isn’t easy access.

— Sue Griswold, Mill Creek

Legislature should stop living beyond means — like we’ve done

Thank you for printing Kate Riley’s column “There has to be a better way,” [Opinion, March 12] and Andrew Garber’s article “Despite cuts, state spending actually on track to go up” [page one, March 11].

My husband has again been laid off after he had been called back as a temp for five months. After his first layoff last April, we went into our “survival mode,” eliminating all but necessary expenses. It was not that hard to do as we do not frequent movie theaters, restaurants and don’t have satellite or cable TV.

For the time being, our cutbacks are simple but effective, including turning down our heat, running the laundry and dish washer only when they are full, curtailing our driving and simplifying our meals. We do not buy anything that we do not absolutely need.

I know we are not the only family in this state that has had to cut back on everyday expenses. It is time that our representatives started listening to us and followed our lead.

They should stop spending what they don’t have on programs that we don’t need. There are many programs that need to be funded, but Olympia throws money away on too many that should not even get a first look — let alone funding.

— Shirley Morgan, Camano Island

Can’t afford special session

I am writing to propose a state initiative that would eliminate any payment to our legislators for their participation during special sessions.

Again in 2010, the citizens of Washington are being asked to reward our legislators — at a cost of approximately $18,300 a day — for their inability to complete their required work — in this case, to pass a balanced budget — during the constitutionally approved regular session.

The irony of paying approximately $90,000 for a weeklong session while the legislators try to figure out which state programs to cut sounds too much like “Alice in Washington Land.”

For me — the average state taxpayer — it is hard to understand why legislators need extra time since they always resolve the issues before them [during the regular session]. Paying the legislators for extra time only rewards them for not being efficient. Let’s remove the money and see if that will provide a sufficient incentive to complete their work on time.

— Theodore E. Andrews, Lacey, Thurston County

Ending relationship hurts U.S. as well

Thomas Friedman’s column “Driving drunk in Jerusalem: Israel takes U.S. for granted” [Opinion, March 16] puts him at the front of the line of people pouring gasoline on a fire in an attempt to put it out.

As many more astute observers have remarked on other pages, the impasse between Israel and the Palestinians has nothing to do with settlements. The Palestinians cannot abide the existence of Israel, period. If they could, we would have had peace 60 years ago, 30 years ago or today.

The Obama administration, by artificially creating a new “obstacle to peace” that did not exist before, has handed the Palestinians another weapon in their worldwide campaign to delegitimize Israel and wipe it off the map. In this effort they have many allies and now we can add Friedman to the list.

But what I object to most of all is the title of his piece. The reality is: The U.S. needs the support of Israel and until now has had no better friend in the world. Israel’s existence is at stake, but in this ridiculous and unnecessary imbroglio, America has the second-most to lose.

— Robert Wilkes, Bellevue

White House picking a losing fight

For Thomas Friedman, it is always axiomatic that Jewish construction is bad and Arab destruction, — like the Biden-and-Clinton-inspired Arab rioting now going on in Jerusalem — is good, or at any rate “justifiable.”

Of course, the decision of the White House to pick a fight with Israel over its routine announcement of an intention to build some apartments for the expanding population of its own capital city has two causes — neither commendable.

First is the desire to keep alive the option of an apartheid Palestine, for it is well-known that Palestinian Arabs cannot accommodate a single Jew in their projected state.

The second part is to divert attention from the implications of Biden’s ludicrous declaration to the Israeli public on March 11 that “The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, period.”

Anyone who believes this might be interested in some choice real estate I know about in downtown Kabul.

— Edward Alexander, Seattle

The straw that broke America’s backing of Israel

Thank you for the powerful editorial suggesting a way to “encourage” Israel to become a true “partner for peace” with Palestine [“Expensive stalemate,” Opinion, March 14]. Up to this point, the U. S. policy has been to demand that Israel stop building settlements but there have been no consequences if the construction did not cease. That demand has been totally ignored, as settlement construction continues at a greater pace.

Now is the time to demand a change in Israel’s policy, with negative consequences if Israel does not comply. The perfect consequence would be for the U. S. government to discontinue military aid to Israel until it stops building settlements.

As Palestinians watch their homes and farmland being demolished and experience the harassment of over 500 Israeli checkpoints — which delay their passage to medical facilities, schools, employment, shopping, worship and family gatherings — they conclude that Israel has no interest in peace, but only in making peace agreements. The constant settlement expansion is the “straw that broke the camel’s back.”

— Sue Ellen Johnson, Shelton

Now is not the time to start over

Editor, The Times:

“Start over?” The Times’ prescription for solving our health-care woes is to “start over”? [“Congress must reject health-reform bill,” Opinion, March 16]. A week away from possible completion and the editorial board wants to begin again?

The Obama administration and a majority of the Senate and the House have worked for more than a year to bring ideas to the table and the opposition has thrown one obstacle after another in the way — not to improve the proposal so much as to block it. Not to find solutions so much as to prevent a successful plan from being approved. And at the end of this process, The Times’ opinion is: “Not good enough, should have been doing something else — let’s start over.”

Perhaps a year ago, suggesting a stronger focus on jobs and the economy would have made sense — though this administration has already put enormous focus on those issues. But now, so close to passage, suggesting that they toss out all this time and effort because you wish they had worked on something else is merely avoiding the issue.

The editorial makes no mention and takes no issue with the opponents who are refusing to contribute to any efforts to improve our overly expensive, underperforming health system. Instead, you join them in refusing to participate in the debate. Perhaps it is the editorial board that should “start over.”

— Jeff Clarke, Everett

Implications for not passing health care

The Times’ true colors shine loud and clear in Tuesday’s anti-health-care editorial. If you scrap the bill like you propose, it would be so damaging to the economy and our nation.

Countless older people would retire before 65 if they could buy insurance, thus freeing up jobs. More small businesses would start if they could get insurance from an exchange. Insurance premiums wouldn’t double in the next 10 years — as they have in the last 10.

Countless people wouldn’t lose their homes or go bankrupt because of illness — how could they then stimulate the economy? Medicare wouldn’t be in the red in seven to eight years. And most of all, 45,000 people a year would not die for lack of health care and our middle class would not disappear..

— Jim and Wanda Granquist, Auburn

Comparison to Mexican drug war, Prohibition

I was shocked to read the editorial asking Congress to reject the health-care bill. The Times and other opponents of the health-care bill ignore the current cost of existing health care and the thousands of people without affordable health care.

Even with its many flaws, it would be a big improvement over what we have. Also, the long-term cost would be less than it is now — not only in terms of money but also in terms of the suffering of people without health care.

The vicious drug war in Mexico would eventually go away if the U.S. would legalize all drugs and sell them in secure dispensaries. The profits from the sales could be used to pay for drug-treatment centers. The users would be known and could be encouraged to go get free treatment.

Those of us old enough to live during Prohibition remember the violence, rum runners and bootleg whiskey. Where I lived — in a community of about 100 — two young drinkers died of liver damage caused by bootleg whiskey.

— Glen Carey, Seattle

Those who have health care unwilling to extend benefits

Obviously, The Times’ editors who keep harping that the “time is not right” to pass the health-care bill are not in the position of having no health insurance, of not being able to afford medical care for sick children or of having health benefits denied due to pre-existing conditions.

Because Congress and the president are in fact moving ahead with programs to provide jobs and to regulate financial excesses, The Times’ claim that other things should take priority seems purely artificial. The Congressional Budget Office has clearly demonstrated that the bill pays for itself over time and it is ridiculous that the richest country in the world lags so far behind other developed countries in health indicators such as infant mortality, well-being and life expectancy.

Every day that we put off improving our health-care system extends human suffering and creates a greater burden for those who must eventually deal with it.

— Lee Holmer, Seattle

Shift of responsibility symptomatic of health-care problem

The article that questioned the benefits of some of the medical tests that U.S. physicians prescribe to their patients took dead aim at the key factor underlying rising health-care costs: a widespread belief that the state of one’s health is primarily based on doctor visits rather than on lifestyle choices [“Experts say U.S. doctors overtesting, overtreating,” News, March 13].

This shifting of health-care responsibility to medical professionals has fueled an incessant demand for third-party payments to cover nearly all medical services. Small wonder that many physicians tend to prescribe expensive medical tests of dubious value when an outside payer — i.e. a government department or insurance company — will pick up most, if not all, of the tab.

This heavy reliance on frequent medical examinations, along with corrective or reparative treatments, is a clumsy and inefficient health-maintenance strategy that is unaffordable to all but the wealthiest.

For everyone else, the only sustainable program is one that emphasizes a lifestyle directed toward preventing health problems — and all their attendant costly treatments — through avoidance of harmful substances and participation in regular exercise.

We must all acknowledge that medical examinations and treatments are not economically viable substitutes for disciplined behavior.

— Mark G. Warner, Bellevue