Author: The Seattle Times: Northwest Voices

Spur American progress through standards

Upon reading the article in The Times about nationwide academic standards, I found myself disturbed that an issue as important as this had been on hold for some time now [“Obama would dismantle No Child Left Behind law,” News, March 14]. By unifying the standards of schools around the country, the overall status of our schools would rise. I feel that because of this program we would see improvements in the development of the youth of this generation in regions of America where academic standards have fallen.

While reading this article I could not stop myself from comparing this program to the surge of math and science during the apex of the Cold War in the 1950s. During that time, our leaders understood that in order to beat the Soviets in the space race, the nation needed to jump-start America at its roots: the children.

The same applies today. Simply speaking, if we want our future to be prosperous as a nation, we must give the children of America a rigorous curriculum that puts them on the path for high academic achievements in the future.

— Andrew Laskowski, Seattle

Labeling schools as ‘failing’ deters teacher’s dedication

Last year I was working in a school with “academically successful” students and felt the need for a new challenge. I asked my school district for a transfer and happily agreed to move to our district’s only dual-language school.

Based on student assessments, my new school is considered a “failing” school, but I’m glad I’ve moved here. I’ve never worked with a staff that was more dedicated or competent. Walking through this school’s halls is magic — one hears Spanish, children’s voices singing along with a teacher’s guitar and staff members in the hall working with groups of students learning how to speak a second language.

There’s a wonderful energy here; it’s a dynamic place, alive with the celebration of learning. There are a lot of factors that affect students’ test scores, which teachers have no control over. But the things that my new school’s teachers can control — the instruction that they provide their students at school — is as good as it gets.

It would be a shame for teachers and students if experienced teachers had to think twice before moving from a “successful” school to a “failing” one because their pay depended on their students’ success on state assessments.

— Karen M. Terrell, Bow, Skagit County

Consolidating districts means smaller class sizes, overhead costs

The Times’ recent editorial “Consolidate smaller school districts” [Opinion, March 14] was spot on. In the online edition [comments section] I see that many readers are missing the point. This is not about consolidating schools but rather about consolidating school districts.

I grew up on Whidbey Island where there are three school districts. Why on one small island do we need three districts? One consolidated district would eliminate countless administrative overhead costs and could translate to smaller class sizes.

In the Coupeville School District alone there are 14 administrative and supervisory positions for just over 1,000 students. That is one staff — not teachers, custodians or cooks — for every 71 students.

— Gerald Shepherd, Bellevue

Brunett has ‘warm personality’ and ‘courteous demeanor’

I read the article in The Seattle Times “Brunett leaving behind a ‘vibrant’ archdiocese,” [page one, March 13]. I have many relatives in Washington state and consequently I take a genuine interest in Seattle-area topics.

I have been privileged to speak to Archbishop Alex Brunett on 21 separate occasions. He has always offered his time and expertise. By conversing with me on a wide array of subject matter, I have a renewed faith. I learned a lot from Archbishop Brunett’s unique point of view.

Although I am Roman Catholic myself, I have found some other bishops cold and aloof. In contrast, Archbishop Brunett has the warm personality, the courteous demeanor and, more importantly, the sincere willingness to reach out and interact with people on their level. For this, I salute him.

As long as he is still physically able and eager to continue, I hope The Vatican will permit Archbishop Brunett to stay on a long while longer.

— James A. Marples, Longview, Texas

Good riddance archbishop

All modern Seattle Catholics should rejoice at Archbishop Brunett’s retirement because he has always thought he could move the Catholic Church forward by moving it backward. He disenfranchises the gay and lesbian Catholics, ignores the impulse toward [hiring] female clergy and noncelibate priests — even as he reinstalls the Latin Catholic Mass.

Conservative Catholics have loved him because his basic philosophy is truly old school: The church is right in all things. I speak for the church, therefore, I am always right — even when I adhere to fourth-century Augustinian philosophies that cannot possibly allow for any development in modern learning or thought.

The real problem is simple: The modern Catholic Church has no legitimate way to integrate any of the learning since the Enlightenment which would truly make it modern. With leaders like Archbishop Brunett, the modern Catholic Church will always remain an oxymoron.

— John Scannell, Sammamish

Blame ISM for Rachel Corrie’s death

Editor, The Times:

Rachel Corrie’s death was a sad and senseless death of a young woman [“Rachel Corrie’s day in court,” Opinion, March 12]. She was close to the age of my daughter. To hear of her death, as a mother, was extremely heartbreaking. But why was she in Gaza?

Why did she allow herself to be used by the International Solidarity Movement? The ISM knowingly endangers the lives of “internationals” by placing them in harm’s way in an active military zone.

During the Intifada, my daughter went to Israel to work as a volunteer medic with Magen David Adom to help Jews, Arabs, Christians and anyone else who was harmed or sick. At the same time Rachel Corrie was duped into standing in front of a bulldozer and was no help to anyone.

The ISM also encourages violent responses to the Israeli army and the army has an obligation to protect its citizens as any army of a legitimate government has an obligation to do so. The Israeli Defense Forces were engaged in legitimate counterterror operations in order to protect it’s citizens.

The ISM brainwashes young, impressionable people to its way of thinking and uses them to deliberately interfere with the Israeli army. The ISM uses “internationals” to achieve this goal and make Israel look like the aggressor. The army did what it needed to do in order to thwart more killings of Israeli citizens — and tourists.

It is the ISM that the Corries should be suing for using their daughter, taking her to a military zone and leaving her there to interfere with the army of a legitimate country that was protecting its citizens from further bombings in Israel’s cities.

— Iris Langman, Mercer Island

Glaring inaccuracies in story

Amy Goodman’s article about Rachel Corrie in The Times concerning the tragic event surrounding her death contains some inaccuracies and distortions of facts. Goodman inaccurately states that the Israeli army was building a “large steel wall” to separate Rafah and Egypt. It was Egypt, not Israel, that built the wall.

While I share the sadness about Corrie’s passing on March 16, 2003, I am concerned why so much has been made about it when compared with the numerous untimely deaths of American and Israeli innocent victims of Palestinian suicide bombings. Is there a double standard here?

Goodman ignores the role played by the Palestinian-based ISM, which must share some of the blame for Corrie’s untimely death when it encouraged her and other members to put themselves in harm’s way in a war zone.

The Israeli army was engaged in legitimate counterterror operations to protect Israeli civilians from indiscriminate Palestinian terrorists attacks. I do believe her death was accidental.

— Josh Basson, Seattle

Preserve Jewish connection to holy sites

Two weeks ago, violence instigated by Iran-backed Hamas struck Israel yet again. Those bent on harming Israel caused dozens of injuries to people at Jerusalem’s holy sites, including at the Western Wall — Judaism’s holiest place.

The leader of Hamas in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, urged Palestinians to unleash a new intifada. “Jerusalem is ours, the land is ours, and God is with us,” Haniyeh said. His threat of mass violence came in response to an Israeli plan to include two holy sites in the West Bank as part of a comprehensive package to preserve Israel’s national heritage and religious sites.

Jerusalem’s holy sites must remain safe and open to all religions — and have been only since Israel took control of Jerusalem in the defensive war of 1967. Before then, when both Christian and Jewish holy sites were under Jordanian control, Jews were forbidden to pray or visit these sites. In recent years, Palestinian terrorists and rioters have desecrated and destroyed Jewish and Christian holy places in areas under their control.

Christians, Muslims and Jews alike have ties to sacred areas around Jerusalem and consider Jerusalem to be their home. Nevertheless, Jews who live in predominantly Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem recently have come under fire in news reports around the world. There is no reason Jews should be prohibited to live in Arab areas, just as Arabs aren’t criticized for living in Jewish neighborhoods — such as Pisgat Ze’ev.

No one should question the right of Jews to live in the united city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the core of the Jewish people — with thousands of years of history connecting them to this holy city.

— Dennis M. Trepanier, Poulsbo

End Israeli military and economic aid

Thank you for being courageous enough to mention an obvious answer to the intransigence and arrogance of the government of Israel in pushing settlement activity in the occupied territories of Palestine [“Expensive stalemate,” Opinion, March 14].

The U.S. must, as The Times editorial board suggests, take a first step of stopping its military aid to Israel. It is morally wrong to contribute to this kind of egregious abuse — no matter how profitable it might be for arms manufacturers here and in Israel.

U.S. military aid in the billions has only convinced Israel that it can get away with — in addition to the land theft of the settlements — outrageous human rights violations up to and including bombing innocent refugees in Gaza last year.

And to add insult to injury, Israelis have universal health care — unlike their patron U.S.

— Linda Jansen, Seattle

Profiling ‘Middle Eastern men’ effective counterterrorism measure

Predictably, Leonard Pitts Jr. uses the arrest of Colleen LaRose, aka Jihad Jane, to advance the politically-correct notion that all ethnic profiling is wrong [“Ethnic profiling and Jihad Jane,” Opinion, March 14].

It was inevitable that terrorists would tap people not fitting the description of, as Pitts wrote, “swarthy, bearded young men with Middle Eastern accents and exotic headgear.” Still, the vast majority of terrorists are, generally speaking, Middle Eastern Muslim males between the ages of 20 and 40 — and no amount of wishful thinking can change that. This may not be the case in the future, but in the meantime, isn’t it simply pragmatic to more closely scrutinize — not harass or intimidate — those fitting the profile?

Think of it this way: If police were looking for a bank robber described as in his late 30s, six feet tall, weighing about 185 pounds with dark brown hair and I was in the area, I would expect law enforcement to take a closer look at me because I fit that description.

Finally, Pitts’ contention that we depend on profiling for our safety is absurd; profiling is but one of many tools used in the battle against Islamic terrorism.

— Brett Davis, Port Orchard

Break up reconstruction into manageable projects

There are enough questions and problems with the Department of Transportation’s State Route 520 A+ plan to suggest this is not the best use of our state’s $4.5 billion resources [“New 520 bridge won’t solve I-5 merge mess,” page one, March 12]. However, it appears there is considerable political pressure and will to move forward on 520.

The state should consider breaking up the project and focusing on the bridge replacement first and defer the west connection to Interstate 5 until a solid design and plan exists. The bridge can be built now with available funding — though it should probably include the ability to support light rail. The west connection is not funded and lacks a compelling design that even meets the most basic high-occupancy-vehicle lane requirements as raised in Mike Lindblom’s article last Friday.

There are many other serious design issues including the way the roadway moves through Montlake. By making some tactical reinforcements to the Portage Bay Viaduct and deferring the rest of the west, it allows the state to make tangible and important progress now instead of holding up everything until the west approach is fixed. Its also much more fiscally responsible given the myriad other transit issues in the region.

— Steve Silverberg, Seattle

What we have doesn’t work, but don’t want what we need

I had an early appointment at the UW Hospital last week. I had forgotten that the southbound express lanes offer no connection to the 520 bridge and its death-defying exit to Montlake. So I kept on wondering where I would come out and how I would get back. As a transplant resident, I don’t have the road smarts that comes from time and travail. I drove all the way to Fifth Street and a quick left put me back on I-5 North and from there to 520 and Montlake.

When I read the piece about the new bridge, I was again moved to disappointment, puzzlement and frustration — and probably other things. Then there’s the biennial fuss over school funding — which will probably leave Washington students again near the bottom of public funding. And then the vox populi still resounds, “too many taxes, cut back the waste.”

Friends and countrymen: Will we ever be willing to pay for what we want and want what works? Any money spent on a losing proposition is no bargain regardless of price.

— Jack McClurg, Marysville

Denying job to man makes sense in light of current events

I was shocked to read that a Muslim man couldn’t get hired by World Relief, a Christian relief agency, because of his religion [“Relief organization rejects job applicant over his faith,” NWWedensday, March 10]. What was World Relief thinking?

So what if the Muslim god Allah wants to blow up the world, if necessary, to get it to convert to Islam. So what if — on the same date — it’s reported that six Christian workers for World Vision were murdered by Muslims in Pakistan [“6 World Vision workers killed in attack,” News, March 10]. Give the guy a job!

By the way, I also think it’s ridiculous that farmers won’t hire foxes to guard henhouses.

— Peter Thalhofer, Vashon Island

Discriminatory practices protected legally

Muslims are absolutely opposed to any and all attempts by anyone to tell the people of any faith community how to conduct their affairs. Every religious community of whatever faith, wherever situated, has an absolute right to freely exercise their religion within their religious community. World Relief reaches out to people of all faiths to serve them and within their organization — which is religious work for them and secular work for all of the people they help — they should suffer no criticism or regulation of how they manage their affairs, whether in hiring or anywhere else.

This Christian group is explicitly exempted from the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of “discriminatory” hiring practices. This is entirely consistent with the U.S. Constitution. It is also consistent with Islamic law and the religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism — all three of which call upon the faithful to join together in the performance of good works that serve humanity and reject any imposition by others to obstruct or manage their good works.

America is one of the only places in the world where religious liberty is both a social ideal and a social reality. There aren’t many other countries where religious liberty is so firmly established as a foundation principle underlying all liberties, written into a social contract, spread throughout the entire justice system and in the hearts of all Americans.

Making an “issue” out of World Relief’s policy is nothing more than an attempt to interfere in the conduct of Christian affairs — by Christians— and to establish a precedent allowing the public to regulate the free exercise of religion, eroding that very religious liberty that makes America a beacon of light for all humanity. I categorically refuse to participate in the pillorying of World Relief for doing what they believe God wants them to do.

— Dawud Ahmad Al-Amriki, Springdale

Won’t tolerate religious discrimination

Simply by publishing the article about the reason for Saad Mohammad Ali’s being turned down for employment by the World Relief organization, The Seattle Times makes a huge but unspoken point with which I agree.

Faith-based operations like World Relief are to be praised and encouraged for the work they do. However, as suppliers of revenue to the U.S. and subsidiary governments, I and my fellow taxpayers ought not to be forced to support any trace of religious discrimination or any other style of bigotry through it.

It’s way past time to tidy up the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

— Roger Milnes, Seattle

Iraqis didn’t need American help to begin with

Editor, The Times:

Thomas Friedman’s column “Good luck, Iraqis — it’s up to you now” [Opinion, March 11] made some valid points regarding the hope coming from the Iraqi elections. The support of the Iraqi citizens reveals itself through their participation during the elections.

However, there were parts of the article that are off-base, such as when Friedman says, “Former President George W. Bush’s gut instinct that this region craved and needed democracy was always right.”

Later Friedman writes that it could have been pursued with better planning and execution. In my opinion, no changes in planning or execution could’ve made the Iraq war justifiable, let alone made Bush right in invading a country with no viable threat to the United States.

Was Iraq a fair country with a strong justice system before the United States invaded? No. But it is not the job of the United States to force democracy onto a nation, especially when that democracy will cost many Americans’ lives, innocent Iraqi civilians’ lives and billions of dollars.

Congratulations America, you’ve improved a country that didn’t want your help while slowly watching as your own citizens lose their jobs, patriotism and lives. But it’s OK, we’re just spreading democracy but never mind saving it at home.

— Ariana Moini, Seattle

Through American involvement, elections made possible

I can completely understand American sentiments toward the Iraq war — it was poorly thought out and poorly executed. In a region of the world where only a select portion of the population is given basic rights, our crusade for democracy has been slow in coming to fruition. In fact, it is arguable that our efforts will be completely fruitless in the long run.

However, the elections that took place are worth celebrating. I firmly believe that it is solely through America’s involvement in Iraq that these elections have become possible — and we should continue to provide our undivided support throughout the entire election process.

Until it is clear that a strong, democratic force is in power in Iraq, we cannot leave. Our international image is already too tarnished to deal with the possibility of these elections backfiring or failing in the final hours — for such an unstable region, the results could be devastating, to all parties involved.

— Aidan O’Sullivan, Seattle

Government can’t be businesslike

We all agree our state’s financial situation — like nearly every other state and local government in the country — is in a real bind [“There has to be a better way,” Opinion, March 12]. But please, especially given the past year of bail outs for big business, can we once and for all just drop the tired cliché, “Why can’t government just operate like a business,” as if that would be the answer to our problems?

I guess not because that’s exactly what Sen. Rodney Tom says, “If you look at corporate America, they are making those tough choices. They are slashing their payrolls 10 to 30 percent. What are we doing?” And columnist Kate Riley says that’s a good question.

For goodness sake, it is not at all a good question. If Tom and Riley haven’t figured it out by now: During a recession, corporate America lays people off because the demand for their products falls. It’s not like they have to make a “tough choice” about laying people off while the demand for their products is increasing. It’s not a tough choice at all.

It is not at all like what happens to government services during a recession. A recession is exactly the time when demand for many government services increases — the needs for more job training, public-works projects to employ more people, food stamps and housing for people who have lost their homes all increase. Even libraries see a lot more use during a recession.

So, in fact, cutting the state payroll just when the demand for services is at its peak is in fact a genuine tough choice.

— Kim Drury, Langley

Balance budget, but don’t raise taxes

The budget crisis is caused by the Democrats pushing onto the public the price of their — the legislators — overspending in boom times, using up the reserve fund and the inability to pull back enough spending to balance the budget.

The continued spending by the legislators is growing faster than the general rate of growth. Consider that 20 to 25 years ago the sales tax was 5 percent or so with a population of 2 to 2.5 million and today it is about 10 percent with a population of about 6 million. Where is the money going if not to roads, education, and general welfare?

I’m as liberal as the next Seattleite, but if they can’t solve the budget without raising taxes again, throw the bums out at the next election and get some fresh liberals who can balance a budget and get Washington back into the lead as a state to be proud of.

— Robert E. Karns, Bellevue

Fix federal deficit with constitutional amendment

We have a massive spending problem and neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem to fully embrace fiscal restraint! I’d like to call on the American people to start pushing for a constitutional balanced-budget amendment — balanced year-to-year or every bi-year [“Fiscal reality (states) and fiscal fantasy (feds),” Opinion, March 12].

This amendment should require a two-thirds supermajority vote to unbalance a budget — for emergencies — to increase taxes above inflation or to borrow money. It should also contain language that states that congressional members who vote to break a balanced budget without an approved two-thirds emergency vote should not be allowed to run for their seat in the next election cycle — creating accountability.

It’s time that the American people force fiscal responsibility on our elected officials. We need to stop this madness of pursuing reckless, irresponsible fiscal policies that are destroying the country and we need to stop offering up indentured servitude of our children to the government.

— Kerry Flint, Seabeck

Request for Olympic National Park land reasonable

The Times’ story on the Hoh Tribe did an excellent job conveying the tribe’s need to move to higher ground in the wake of river floods, ocean storms and potential tsunamis [“River flooding out tribe,” page one, March 9].

The tribe has shown foresight and determination, working for years to acquire lands from private timberland owners and the Washington Department of Natural Resources to relocate tribal housing and essential services. The small — 37 acre — piece of Olympic National Park’s coastal strip needed to link these lands to the existing reservation is a reasonable request.

Normally, park advocates are loath to see a single acre removed from our irreplaceable national parks. But the Hoh Tribe has been responsible and open in its modest request. We hope Congress will act in a timely manner to ensure the tribe’s future safety.

— Donna Osseward, Olympic Park Associates president, Seattle

Don’t grant special treatment to tribe

I am sorry that the Hoh Tribe is experiencing flooding in their traditional reservation area, but I have issues with their request for 37 acres of the Olympic National Park.

Do the citizens of other flood-prone areas — Chehalis for example — ever assume they are “entitled” to an act of Congress to get another chunk of land for free to replace where they live when and if it floods? Does anyone else ever assume they can ask to grab a chunk of any national park for this reason? The Olympic National Park grounds are sacred and should not be given to anyone whatsoever.

I wish the flooding wasn’t happening to anyone, anywhere. However, as any individual flooded-out person must do, maybe the Hoh Tribe should talk with their insurance company about their flood insurance coverage.

Do not expect the citizens of this state or this country to donate any national park lands to them. Nobody else would ever assume this or even attempt to insinuate that.

— Janet Blight, Lynnwood

Blame primary education, not high-school teachers

In setting this precedent, the Obama administration is guilty of a major oversight: High-school teachers aren’t directly responsible for ensuring that students have basic math or literacy foundations [“Obama’s ‘unfriendly’ education push,” Opinion, March 10]. These students were passed from primary school without these skills and that is inexcusable. The aims of No Child Left Behind are well-meaning, however, this dilemma highlights its plethora of shortcomings.

Living in a less-affluent area, the Central Falls High School students have likely been shortchanged for decades in educational opportunities. It is the undeniable responsibility of primary teachers to ensure students meet state grade-level standards before moving on.

When this doesn’t happen, students’ academic deficiencies are compounded and eventually lead to dramatically reduced skills in high school and consequently higher incidences of dropouts. These teachers should have agreed to simple reforms that suitable teachers would enjoy and easily understand the benefits of. Their resistance is confounding.

Regardless, the responsibility for kids lacking the most necessary skills for postsecondary success should be directly attributed to the school system’s failures in primary classrooms and I’d recommend the entire district be re-evaluated for rehire unless they can address the real root of the problem. This would be a precedent that could catalyze real change.

— Lera Moore, Kirkland

Turn space into multipurpose family area

Editor, The Times:

In The Times’ article “Glass vs. Grass” [page one, March 10], there only seems to be a description of the positive effects of building the glass museum. The article does not mention that Dale Chihuly already has a glass museum in Tacoma. Taking public space for an additional glass museum from the same artist does not seem logical. The public space around the Seattle Center does not need another attraction that requires an admission.

The demolition of the Fun Forest is an opportunity for a more open-space design that would prove ideal for the many festivals and events that Seattle Center hosts each year. This simpler, more open design may not generate revenue, but it would require less to maintain and promote a friendly community atmosphere. If Chihuly wants another glass museum, he doesn’t need to take up the already fairly limited public space at Seattle Center.

The idea for the glass museum may be well-intended, but I think its predicted success is overambitious. Seattle citizens need a more open central area that they can believe would not cost them money.

In the current economy, what sounds more likely for a middle-class family of four on a sunny day: a picnic at Seattle Center, or spending $50 or more just for admission to a museum of glass art?

— Quinn Mazure, Lake Forest Park

Other suggestions for space

What a shame it would be if we take away this wonderful, casual, seemingly public and fun space and turn it into just another commercial space. While I do so appreciate Chihuly as nearly an icon, do we then need to devote this huge space to him? I say the whole world has done that already.

The Center is already filled with so much concrete and so many buildings — but I do love the fountain with the benches all around it. I would like to see green trees and grass and have tables and benches within the area — some under cover as well.

This could come along with a multicultural, varied and almost deli-type food area and there would be no charge to enter the area. Or how about a Ferris wheel a la Paris and London? At least it would be something more welcoming to the whole public with some whimsy and personality.

— Carol Cotter, Edmonds

Praise for Wright family and Chihuly

Hooray for the Wright family for proposing a glass museum honoring Dale Chihuly at Seattle Center! How generous too of Chihuly to offer to share his artistry.

I’ve had the pleasure of visiting the fabulous Phipps Botanical Gardens and Conservatory in Pittsburgh with its beautiful gardens and Chihuly art on display. How wonderful it would be to have a similar attraction in this area. I feel confident the museum will be a great addition to Seattle Center and certainly great consideration will be given to the surrounding environment as well.

Parks are great but do we really want another Central Park along with its crime-laden history, maintenance and security costs in Seattle? I don’t think so.

— Jan England, Renton

Move Thiry house to site

It seems to me if the [Seattle Center] site is to be developed and not used as an open space with trees, that it would be more appropriate to move the Thiry house to the site [“Can this house be saved?” NWWednesday, March 10].

It would not be as intrusive as a 43-foot-tall glass structure; It would be another prime example of’60s architecture on Seattle Center grounds designed by Paul Thiry, “the father of Northwest Modernism.” The Coliseum and The Science Center Pavilion are already there. The Native American motif on the [house’s] stucco walls would be preserved and it could showcase Northwest Art — including works by Dale Chihuly.

It would be a great asset and addition to the architecture on the grounds of Seattle Center.

— Mike G. Hickey, Jr, Seattle

Marcelas Owen’s story shows need for preventive care

The untold piece to the story about Marcelas Owen, who lost his mother, is the cost of emergency medical care versus preventive care [“Boy takes personal story to D.C.,” NWTuesday, March 9]. This case illustrates the fact that regardless of income, everyone in this country has access to medical care — emergency care that is.

However, as we all know, an ounce of prevention is often worth pounds of cure. The preventive care in this case may have saved the life of Marcelas’ mother, as well as money. I have no idea how much Owens’ visits to the emergency room or the hospital stays cost, but I do know that these costs are absorbed by hospitals as overhead that are then passed along to others. Emergency-room costs are more expensive than preventive care and this adds to the overall cost of health care for everyone.

There are approximately 46 million without health care in this country and one way or another we all will pay for their health care. It would be much more compassionate and much less costly if we did it as preventive care for everyone before emergency-room care is needed

— Don Van Valkenburg, Woodinville

Owen’s problems are his own to deal with

While the story of Marcelas Owens’ mother is a tragedy, it still does not warrant burdening the people of this country with footing the astronomical bill being pawned by President Barack Obama. I cannot imagine what this family has had to endure, but why should the onus be on everyone else to pay for this — or situations like this?

And how shameless and tactless of the Democrats — especially Patty Murray — to use this kid as a prop for their agenda. It is simply disgusting.

If the shoe were on the other foot, there is no way I would ever ask for special treatment. My problems are my problems, not the American public’s. How refreshing it would be if our leaders saw it that way, but that is clearly hoping for too much. Owens’ problems are not mine to bear — nor anyone else’s.

— Taiji Tamura, Shoreline

Suspend federal officials’ health care

I would like to weigh in on the health-care debate. I am an ex-logger who attended some college and at one time was insurance-licensed for life insurance. This, and never being able to afford health care for my four kids as I raised them, gives me an inside look at today’s topic.

One of my classes in college, which I had to work like a dog to pass, was medical coding and billing. I learned that entire businesses were in place to attempt to collect on the insurance payments due to the doctors. The privacy requirements in place do nothing for privacy and small wonder the doctors miss stuff. Every insurance carrier has different company methods and schedules and do not want to change a thing — who would? The insurance companies have us against the ropes. They are adding to the cost of your health care by as much as double.

I would suggest that we suspend all heath care for elected federal officials until this mess is solved. That’s right, senators, representatives, the president, vice president, etc., would suddenly have to pay their family’s own medical bills out of pocket or shop around for some good coverage — our insurance companies and political contributors will be glad to help out.

I believe President Obama and Vice President Biden would support such a move because it would put the issue in perspective.

— David Beers, Hoodsport

Income tax long overdue

Editor, The Times:

Why is Sen. Lisa Brown’s income-tax proposal “a wretched idea,” as Monday’s editorial claims? [“Stay focused, Olympia,” Opinion, March 8].

As far as I can tell, the editorial board’s collective mind thinks it’s [a bad idea] because the state has more important things to do right now and it’s some kind of trick from the Legislature. Is the Legislature sneakily opening the door to a high sales tax and an income tax reaching across all income brackets?

That isn’t likely. The state hasn’t passed a general tax increase in 17 years. If anything, Washington’s lawmakers have been too timid in taking on a tax structure that obviously needs to change. The current policy — asking the bottom 20 percent to devote more than 17 percent of their incomes to taxes while the top 1 percent pays just over 3 percent — is what’s truly appalling.

Paying taxes isn’t pleasant by any means, but it is necessary if we want to keep a functioning state government. If Brown’s proposal is approved by the Legislature and Washington voters, it would be a tiny step toward fixing a tax system that right now isn’t fair or sustainable. Why is even bringing it up such an unspeakable sin?

— Garrett McCulloch, Seattle

Nip income tax in the bud

I read a letter to the editor extolling the wisdom of the powers that be to devise a proposition whereby the state’s financial woes can be alleviated by taxing incomes [“State income tax: current system unfair,” Northwest Voices, March 8]. It appears that an income tax is acceptable as long as it is applied to someone else’s income.

A few years ago, a maple key fluttered down and found a resting place under the edge of my back porch. Nobody noticed it until it sprouted and four little leaves appeared. I left it alone and it didn’t grow for several years and then it suddenly shot up to a height of approximately 10 feet. I do now wish I had pulled it up when it first appeared. It would have been so easy to avoid the unpleasant job of getting rid of it now that it has become a whole tree and a real problem.

$200,000 is not the fortune many people believe it to be. Whomever in the Legislature thinks that it is a huge sum will probably be replaced by someone who thinks the figure should be much lower.

Lets take out the tree before it sprouts.

— John Steptoe, Bothell

Income tax targets above-average earners

The editorial in The Times labeled the proposed income tax as a lame, desperate, awful extortion and an idea without political or economic merit. A progressive tax is a simple concept based on seeking additional taxes from the most fortunate and able.

The proposed income tax on those making more than $200,000 is a step to stem the 30-year erosion of funding for K-12 public education and other services and to temper the galloping wealth disparity in the United States.

The editorial would have better served the readers by helping us understand why those making four times the average wage — the average wage in Washington State is about $50,000 per year — could and should not shoulder a modest tax. The Times, of course, can be opposed to taxes if it wants, but to cheaply mislabel the legitimate political and economic concept of a progressive tax is embarrassing to the Pacific Northwest and smacks of yellow journalism.

— Scott Barnhart, Seattle

Soda and candy tax needed for the sake of kids’ teeth

I agree that removing the sales-tax loophole for candy and sugary drinks is a good idea [“A compromise plan for the state budget,” Opinion, March 7]. And this is coming from a dark-chocolate lover! I will happily pay a bit more for my “addiction” if it funds dental and medical services for kids.

Childhood obesity is a significant issue that needs addressing, but I also see dental disease as a major health issue affecting children. As a public-school nurse, I see kids daily who are in pain from untreated cavities and I’ve observed kids with teeth destroyed to the gum line. Kids can’t learn when in pain and dental disease is totally preventable.

For many families without dental coverage, regular dental checkups or even a visit to the dentist for a major problem are luxury items. These kids end up in hospital emergency rooms with taxpayers and consumers paying the bills.

Prevention is the operative word here. Money needs to be spent by investing in prevention programs. We must continue to support existing programs such as Access to Baby and Child Dentistry to provide dental care to low-income children.

Putting the sales tax on candy and soda could help to make our children healthier and fund programs that work.

— Mary K. Myers, Kent

No comparison between sectors

I would like to commend Drew DeSilver and Andrew Garber on their thorough examination of state and nonstate workers’ compensation [“How state workers’ pay really stacks up,” page one, March 7]. It should provide a quieting pacifier to the sophomoric whining we often read on the editorial pages. The Times’ editorial staff consistently proposes reducing state workers’ compensation as a simplistic solution to the state budget crisis.

As the astute authors point out, a direct comparison [of state and nonstate workers] is not accurate. In fact, professional-level employees of the state receive less monetary compensation than their private-sector colleagues. Through the boom times of the ’90s and until recently, I watched colleagues leave state work for better pay in the private sector. The benefits and gradual-pay schedules of state work was an incentive for me as a family man.

Now, as desperation sets in with the slowing economy, the editorial board suggests that we — after committing our careers to the state — should be denied the maturation of our investment. Conservatives have been accused of underfunding government work in order to attract only the inept, thus strengthening their argument that government is incompetent. Is this approach what the editorial board is endorsing?

— Thomas McClure, Seattle

Anecdotal evidence points to inconsistencies

Apparently Drew DeSilver and Andrew Garber missed the story about a Washington State Ferries deckhand who collected nearly $73,000 in travel expenses last year — $13,000 more than his annual salary [“Limits sought for ferry-job benefits,” Around the Northwest, March 7]. In fairness to them I must have missed something in their story about salaries and compensation that didn’t address health-care and retirement benefits — especially when the age old credo was “they get better retirement benefits because their salaries are inferior to the private sector.”

My daughter works in the Kent School District — a state employee — and has a medical-and-dental plan that would cost the private sector employee $1,000 per month and yet The Times’ reporters say it’s “difficult to compare” benefits and pensions. The health-care and retirement benefits should have been the focus of story and not the state workers’ salaries.

Please think about the retirement-plan costs of 149,000 or so current state workers and compare that with the private sector.

— Drew Popson, Kent

Boeing’s NewGen tanker inferior to EADS’ design

I am disturbed by the decision of Northrop Grumman and EADS [parent of European plane maker Airbus] to decline to rebid on the U.S. Air Force tanker contract [“Now sole bidder for tanker Boeing must get price right,” page one, March 9].

Boeing plans to offer a plane with 30-year-old airframe technology and parts built mainly overseas, then assembled in the U.S. The Northrop Grumman proposal was for a much newer, larger and more capable platform that was initially chosen by the Air Force as better fitting the needs of the war fighter. While built overseas, final outfitting would have been done in the U.S., bringing new jobs to the South, where there is a stable work force.

Boeing has claimed their proposal will save the taxpayer $10 billion in fuel cost and is American designed and built. This ignores the fact that much of it is built overseas and that it carries a one-third smaller payload than the competitor. So yes, the Northrop Grumman proposal will cost more to carry the same amount of fuel, but that also means it is not being used to its full potential.

The original win by Northrop Grumman was for about $184 million per tanker for the first 68 tankers. With the Department of Defense decision to procure a much smaller and less capable design, the taxpayer can expect a less costly plane.

While I am not against U.S. jobs and efforts to help American industry, I also want the Air Force to get the best possible plane and in this case it did not. However, the Air Force is used to flying terribly old planes — the current KC-135 tanker first flew in 1956 and the KC-10 tanker in 1980 — so they will not be disappointed with the Boeing choice.

— John Matthews, Everett

Need to ensure a patient’s choice, limit coercion

Editor, The Times:

The Times’ article on “death with dignity” demonstrates a not-so-subtle shift in messaging by assisted-suicide advocates [“Why some couldn’t die on their own terms,” page one, March 7]. Before the vote on Initiative 1000, advocates of assisted suicide assured voters that no doctor would be forced to assist his or her patients to commit suicide and that a physician’s medical judgment would never be compromised.

Now, doctors are criticized for not suggesting suicide to patients who may not even be terminal. For a physician to even raise the issue of suicide with an ill and elderly patient it could be highly coercive. The patient who fears being a burden may interpret the suggestion of suicide as encouragement.

The so-called protections of I-1000 are minimal enough without attempting to hurry up the process.

— Theresa Schrempp, Seattle

Hippocratic oath bars assisted suicide

Whether you see merit in “physician-assisted suicide” or not, it is an inconvenient truth that the Hippocratic oath clearly states: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.”

It is true that many medical schools have abandoned this oath from the start — probably because it also swears to take no fee for teaching students medicine. Nonetheless, this oath is etched in the minds of our society as the cornerstone for the profession of medicine.

How can a physician possibly prescribe — or suggest — an intentional lethal dose and still claim the dignity of the Hippocratic oath?

— Gerald N. Yorioka, Mill Creek

Personal story disproves need for I-1000

Carol Ostrom’s article faulting some doctors for not better advising patients on the new assisted-suicide law is written from the premise that one has a right to die on his or her own terms. Since when?

In 2005 I was diagnosed with an incurable neuroendocrine cancer and told I had six months at best. A doctor in Houston would not even see me for a second opinion; they essentially said it was hopeless.

Yet I’m still alive and kicking. Why do we want the state involved with incentivizing people to prematurely give up hope? Why do we have to alter a doctor’s role? Why are we sanctioning the selfishness of suicide? It’s insanity masquerading as sanity.

The logical outcome is identified in this month’s Atlantic Monthly in a profile on the founder of Dignitas, the Swiss-based firm that helps anyone commit suicide for any reason. The founder brags about helping 1,000 people kill themselves. With the help of death-with-dignity laws, that’s where we are headed.

— Chris Carlson, Medimont, Idaho

Personal experiences with terminally-ill patients affirms need

Thank you for the extensive articles on death with dignity and the organization Compassion and Choices in Sunday’s paper. This is a very important issue and the articles were very informative, telling people the how, why and who.

As a clergy person who sits by the beds of many dying in our church families, it is very important that they get the best information and this kind of support.

I am all in favor of death with dignity, which doesn’t prolong the suffering of the patient or the family.

— Rev. Richard K. Gibson, Lynnwood

Democrats aren’t ramming health-care reform through

In his March 6 column, Charles Krauthammer tries to muddy the waters by airing the latest Republican talking points [“Ramming Obamacare through,” Opinion]. You can spot their message discipline by now: How many times have you heard the phrase “ramming through” recently?

The Democrats are not trying to “ram through” health-care reform by some undemocratic process. They already passed it by the regular process when both houses of Congress passed health-care bills recently.

Two bills passed by regular rules and with minor differences. In the Senate, it got 60 votes — a huge margin in Senate terms. That’s bigger than the Bush tax cuts or Medicare Part D — all of which were passed using “reconciliation,” which Republicans then called “majority rules.”

Krauthammer trotted out other familiar obfuscations. But the facts are: Of the majority opposed to the current bill, almost half are opposed because it doesn’t go far enough. The public option still polls in the high 60s, despite all the lies told about it. This is not a “government takeover” — can Krauthammer remember how long the idea of Medicare For All lasted?

Let’s just call out the hypocrisies and misdirections for what they are.

— David Brooks, Redmond

No effective Republican solution

The Republicans did make a few worthwhile suggestions in the “summit” debate, but they were really only minor. They suggested no effective way to reduce the number of people without health insurance, which — for anyone who has even a modicum of sympathy for individuals who through no fault of their own don’t have coverage — is the crux of the matter.

In fact, what the Republicans have suggested would probably increase the number of uninsured. Charles Krauthammer’s statement that the “Republicans did so well” can only be viewed as truthful if one compares their performance with what we had every reason to expect: a continuation of their mindless obstructionism.

Krauthammer goes on to talk about the cost of Obama’s scheme and quotes Warren Buffett. Since when was Buffett an expert on the country’s health program? In all the talk about cost, the projected amount is not compared with what it will cost us over the next 10 years if we don’t rein in the current annual rate of increase.

Moreover, the mess we’re in wouldn’t be half as bad if the Republicans hadn’t spent billions on an unnecessary war and cut taxes for the wealthy — and both came about through “budget reconciliation” — and was gently done, of course, unlike Krauthammer’s description of the ramming by Obama.

— Philip S. Spiers, Bellevue

Let them eat ice cream

Charles Krauthammer likens providing access to basic health care for all Americans to the government giving free ice cream, steak and flowers to its citizens. Last I heard, no one died prematurely because of lack of flowers or declared bankruptcy because of the inadequacy of their ice-cream allotment.

Following Krauthammer’s thinking, I suppose educating children of families who cannot afford private school is akin to giving free chocolate bars to the masses. Let’s not forget police protection for neighborhoods that don’t have gates and private guards — that’s just like providing free Champagne!

I don’t want free ice cream, steak or flowers. I just want a basic health-care system that doesn’t disappear when I change jobs, is affordable to the average worker and isn’t canceled because I get sick. It’s time for a change.

— Karen N. Gielen, Seattle

Focusing on solar could alleviate problem

Here we go again: Drought hits and Seattle City Light rates increase [“Warm weather downside: drought worries,” page one, March 3]. Like it or not, dams work great — but only when it rains. Seattle City Light is held hostage by thermal power [that causes droughts] when it does not rain.

Solution: Try solar energy. By conserving natural gas with an aggressive solar greenhouse, solar window and solar hot-water program, you conserve natural gas for cogeneration. Natural-gas cogeneration is a heating and cooling system that also makes electricity. For example, a laundromat can make hot water or a grocery store can make air conditioning while making electricity.

Solar energy works well in droughts. Cogeneration on commercial buildings could displace all the hydropower lost. To finance this, Seattle should take a serious look at purchasing the gas utility from Puget Sound Energy. By integrating natural gas with solar operations as part of Seattle City Light, this would put an end to this cycle of higher rate increases during droughts.

— Martin Nix, Seattle

UW student strike disrupted classes, wasted time and money

Editor, The Times:

As a student at the University of Washington, I can certainly sympathize with my peers concerning the issue of education budget cuts [“Rallies target college funding,” NWFriday, March 5]. I personally already have $15,000 in student-loan debt as a freshman and — naturally — the threat of a future increase is not appealing.

However, I am writing in response to the student strike against budget cuts that took place last Thursday on the Seattle campus. With about a half-hour left in my psychology class, hundreds of angry protesters burst through the doors of the lecture hall with megaphones in hand and called for us to leave class. In my opinion, this was possibly the worst way protesters could have gone about sharing their message with the world.

This is not the students’ problem, it’s Olympia’s problem. Protesters preach they don’t want greater financial hardship thrust into the hands of those who have no finances to begin with, yet they waste minutes of a lecture that people are paying to be in.

I don’t like budget cuts either, but wasting our time and our money in the process ruins the argument. Things won’t change with hypocrisy.

— Melissa Roop, Seattle

Keep universities accessible and affordable

Time and again, the students of Washington have been used as the state’s “rainy-day” fund. Rep. Deb Wallace understands that the only way Washington is going to grow is to have a well-educated population. The only way to ensure this is by keeping our public universities accessible and affordable.

UW’s Mark Emmert’s $1.4 million salary is just one of the reasons why the UW — or any other institution — should not have the authority over tuition. Failures of institutions like the UW to ensure that students retain an affordable education supports the idea that they do not put the student’s best interests in front of them. A public university is a public good and as Wallace puts it so well, “It’s important that we keep ownership and accountability.”

Over 50 percent of our students are first-generation and many are low-income. If House Bill 6562 becomes law, Eastern Washington University would be added in due time, making our most affordable institution available only to the wealthy.

— Kris Byrum, ASEWU legislative affairs representative, Cheney

Personal choice to live overrides cellphone freedoms

Shame on House Republicans for weakening the proposed bill to make cellphone use by drivers of any age a primary offense [“Distracted driving: House of wimps,” Opinion, March 6]. Their rationale is, [according to] Rep. Mike Hewitt, “I don’t like the government being in all aspects of our business.” Rep. Dan Roach says, “The libertarian in me comes out with these types of issues. It’s not a Democratic or Republican issue. It’s a personal choice issue.”

So if I understand this careless, arrogant and tiresome rhetoric correctly, the “personal choice” of a driver to drive a multi-ton piece of metal while distracted — according to scientific research, it is a greater risk than driving while intoxicated — trumps my personal choice and that of my family, my neighbors and all Washington residents to live.

There is no piece of information so important and no call so critical that justifies texting or talking on a cellphone while driving — no matter how important you think you are. The free world won’t collapse if you’re unreachable while you get to your destination. Face it, your call and your text message can wait, but a bill to ban cellphone use and texting while driving as a primary offense for all ages can’t wait.

— Beth Shepard, Kent

A ‘common-sense’ law

Reading about the legislative maneuvers to all but kill a more sensible law for cellphone use while driving helped me appreciate why so many people are cynical about government.

Do the Republican opponents of this bill really think we can’t see through their absurd, illogical arguments? By this logic, we should get rid of drunk-driving laws — or for that matter make red lights optional.

I love freedom as much as anybody, but if you want to use the public roadways, there’s nothing tyrannical about some common-sense laws to protect public safety. And no one can honestly deny that driving is not impaired if you’re trying to hold a phone to your ear.

— Rick Kosterman, Seattle

More dangerous than drunken driving

I’d like to ask Reps. Mike Hewitt and Dan Roach, if they have a problem with laws that make it a crime to shoot at drivers from freeway overpasses? Do they object to making drunken driving illegal? The threat to innocent bystanders from drivers distracted by texting is greater than either of those.

It’s one thing to tout one’s “libertarian” instincts, but it’s quite another thing to thoughtlessly take it to the extreme of turning an ideologically “blind eye” to behavior that clearly endangers non- participants. If this pair can’t see something that obvious, one has to wonder what they’re doing as lawmakers.

— Sidney Schwab, Everett