Author: The Seattle Times: Northwest Voices

New alfalfa seed limits roundup use

The Times should be applauded for its evenhanded article covering genetically modified alfalfa [“Monsanto’s altered alfalfa on verge of a new season,” Business, March 2]. The modified alfalfa seed Monsanto wants to market has their popular weedkiller “Roundup” built into it, enabling farmers to avoid massive spraying of Roundup on their farms.

Roundup has been in use for a long time. This new seed will limit the dispersion of Roundup’s active ingredient, a benefit for those opposed to insecticide on principle.

As for the farmers who are afraid they will be forced to buy it, Monsanto doesn’t have a monopoly on alfalfa seed; If the market demands an unmodified seed, the market will find a way of delivering it. As for the risk of Roundup-resistant weeds: If they exist, they’ll exhibit this same trait even if Roundup is sprayed on fields rather than built into the seed.

Ultimately, Drex Gauntt summarizes the reality that farmers face: If customers specifically do not want to buy alfalfa grown from such seed, then they won’t buy it and farmers will simply grow traditional varieties.

— Michael Eisen, Seattle

Toxicity, death allegedly linked to modification

Monsanto wants to sell “Roundup Ready” alfalfa. This is wrong. In North America we are altering our DNA from consuming these crops or when we eat the animals that eat these crops.

Genetically modified organisms are linked to toxins, allergies, infertility, infant mortality, immune dysfunction, stunted growth, death and other unexplainable illnesses. But Monsanto and the USDA are lying and covering up. It’s all about money and owning all the seed in the world.

— Mary Emmick, Issaquah

Organic food reduces environmental footprint, obesity

On the news the other night they compared the cost of feeding the world with conventionally grown food versus organic — and conventional won out

I disagree. First of all, the world — especially the First World — consumes too many animal products, with the Third World countries quickly coming on board. These foods are very expensive to produce and consume large areas of land for growing the food, vast amounts of water, not to mention electricity and gasoline, before they end up on your plate.

When served in a fast-food restaurant, these foods are usually accompanied by sugar-laden soft drinks and French fries, grown conventionally with pesticides and cooked in hot oil. This brings about another expense: health-care costs.

The world population is getting fatter and with that comes another set of problems: diabetes, heart disease, and so on, which puts a huge burden on already skyrocketing health-care costs. Also, our conventional food supply is loaded with additives to make food taste better, which only encourages people to eat more!

Conventionally grown products not only contain pesticides, antibiotics and hormones, but the animal products — such as beef — are raised primarily on corn, which is not their natural diet.

So if we think of long-term costs, organic will win out.

— Sandra Tobler, Lynnwood

An open letter to Bunning

Editor, The Times:

On behalf of our 10 grandchildren and six great-grandchildren, we want to thank you for having the courage to stand up on their behalf and request that federal spending bills be accompanied by the money to pay for it [“After 5 days of drama, lawmaker yields on federal spending bill,” page one, March 3]. The firestorm that your actions created is a very small example of what will come because of the unsustainable increase in the federal debt.

We make a simple request of those congressional members who lack the courage to make the hard decisions that need to be made now: At least recognize you are guilty of child neglect! They put off the hardships and hard choices to the next generations that they are unwilling to make themselves. They have created a financial situation that ultimately will be irresolvable except by the devaluation of the dollar and the stripping away its position as the world currency. That day is fast approaching and viewing history for a moment, we can make some unsettling comparisons.

For example, 40 years ago, the United States won the “space race” when we landed on the moon. The results of that endeavor — in the form of technological advancements — far outweighed the cost. But as of the end of this year, we will no longer be able to travel in space but instead have to rely on the Russians. With an ever-increasing diversion of our taxes paying the interest on our debt, there will be no breakthroughs for this country in the future; We won’t be able to afford it.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the position you did and enduring the hypocrites that attacked you for political purposes — instead of acknowledging that your position was correct. Future generations will wish that there were more congressional members like you as they were growing up.

— Jim and Deb Lindgren, Sequim

Bunning’s tax-cut vote helped spur deficit

The senator from Kentucky who so valiantly held the line against further deficit spending is the classic example of current Republican hypocrisy.

This same principled gentleman voted lock, stock and barrel for every budget-busting, deficit-raising measure proposed and passed by the Bush administration — the results of which turned an inherited budgetary surplus into a more than $12 trillion debt in the course of eight years.

And Sen. Jim Bunning’s hypocrisy is not unique to him. Americans need to look beyond the froth and fury of our newly minted “fiscal conservatives” and ask them what role did they play in getting us into this dire predicament, before lighting their torches and burning down town hall.

— Ron Dickson, Seattle

Spending reasonable in disastrous circumstances

I wonder if Sen. Jim Bunning and his supporters would delay aid for an American city destroyed by an earthquake unless an “offset in spending” was found to not increase the federal deficit. Probably not unless only the poor and unemployed lived there.

— Arthur DePalma, Mill Creek

Income tax would discriminate against wealthy

The proposed income-tax scheme is both insidious and immoral [“Add income tax on wealthy to cut sales tax for everyone?” page one, March 5].

It’s insidious because it takes the “safety” off the tax “gun,” thereby opening Pandora’s box to virtually unchecked spending. Governments at all levels are necessary evils that are kept in check only by tax starvation. Less government is the best government.

The tax proposal is immoral because it uses the state to discriminate and extort from the wealthy. And no matter how you try to justify it, extortion is theft because wealth is ultimately taken by coercion and force. This is essentially “proxy theft,” whereby voter greed uses the state as a thief to benefit — directly or indirectly — pocket books. And theft — proxy or otherwise — is both sinful and immoral.

And, lest one tries to discredit this rationale by flinging the word “compassion” about, let me remind folks that only individuals can be compassionate, not collectives. In other words, you have to use your own bucks — and not the bucks of others — in order to be truly compassionate.

— Gerald J. Stiles, Sequim

Current system unfairly targets lower and middle classes

I’m so glad the media and legislators are finally listening to what the public has been saying on this issue [income tax].

Lower-income people pay a much higher share of their income under the current system that relies on sales tax. In order to help middle-income people, lawmakers should go even further — with higher rates of taxation on the super rich and reduction of property taxes on homes.

Finally things are starting to move in the right direction!

— Helen Gilbert, Seattle

Give ‘em a sales-tax break

If the Legislature continues to drag its feet on proposing a high-income tax — one of the most fair taxes for our state’s residents — then how about a sales-tax holiday one weekend in August for back-to-school necessity shopping?

Other states without an income tax do this because they know families with children pay the most in sales tax as a percentage of their income. Back-to-school supplies and clothes are heavily taxed and are thus grossly unfair to lower- and middle-income families.

I’m asking the Legislature to get to work and fix this budget crisis without continuing to hurt Washington’s working families.

— Patricia Betz, Mill Creek

Taxing ‘God’s gift’

Why don’t we just tax God’s gift to man? That is what Gov. Chris Gregoire is proposing in taxing water without even thinking about the whole concept of drinking-water usage at all [“House Dems don’t go for increase in sales tax,” NWTuesday, March 2]. It is the one thing that helps man survive in all kinds of daily exposures by flushing out toxins.

There is nothing more important to the human body than water intake. Many people are not around a faucet 24 hours a day and bottled water is a way of keeping all of us out of medical facilities and keeping healthy on a daily basis. Nursing homes pass out bottled water on day trips. Ever gone on a walk without bottled water to help with dehydration?

The best way of catching up with your daily intake is to have that bottled water available while in the car and eating a snack during lunch break. And what about those who send their children to school and put water in their lunchbox? Or those who just drink bottled water due to bad well water?

The fact is, it will make it too expensive for many budgets with the penny-an-ounce tax.

— Gary Davidson, Bellingham

Providing for community done in good faith

People of all faiths are concerned for the common good in Washington state. We, as religious leaders in this state, believe that the people we have elected to represent us also want the best for people who live in this state.

We recognize the difficulty of balancing the budget with the significant shortfall caused by our great national recession — for the second year in a row. Many of the people in our faith communities are facing the same challenges. We understand that our state budget is more than just a list of accounts and expenditures; it is a document that lays out our values and priorities for how we best serve the common good.

As we enter the last few days of this legislative session — and the Legislature’s primary task is putting together a final budget for the governor — we support as substantial a revenue package as possible to alleviate the cuts and eliminations of critical programs and services. We support doing this in these difficult economic times because the human toil of the proposed cuts — on top of last year’s almost $4 billion — will be devastating.

The alternative will increase the devastation of the poor and vulnerable of our state.

— Rev. Gregory H. Rickel, Olympia, & Rev. Michael Denton, Seattle

Just start over

I am shocked and disappointed at President Obama’s plan to use the reconciliation process to pass the health-care bill [“Obama on health care: Just get it done,” page one, March 4]. The bill is way too long and complicated and it does not have the broad support of the American people.

They should start over building it from the ground up, piece by piece, listening respectfully to the people and not lording over us like we are the stupid ones: “Oh, I know the American people say they do not want this, but they don’t understand, they will appreciate it when we pass it.” We are not stupid, listen to us.

It is rare in the U.S. for Congress to attempt to pass such a significant measure without strong support from all sectors. President Obama and Congress should respect history, break from the hypnotic trance and do what is truly right for America: Start over on health care.

— Paul Fuglevand, Redmond

Hippocratic health-care-reform oath: ‘Do no harm’ to existing care

I have read portions of President Obama’s ideas on health care. What impressed me was that very little was said about health or health care per se. Rather, the discussion was all about health insurance, employers, mandates upon individuals, families and businesses and proposed changes to the tax code to keep dollars from being driven to the health-insurance companies.

Unfortunately, I did not see anything that would reliably drive down the underlying cost of health care, reduce complexity or promote better health.

Conspicuously absent was any reliable plan to rescue Medicare. As of March 1, the reimbursement rate to doctors was scheduled to drop by 21 percent from levels which were already so low they were forcing some doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients.

It appears increasingly evident that the real driving force behind the attempt at health-care reform pushed by Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Patty Murray is to convince voters that the Democrats are doing something.

But if doing something simply means more government control and mandates, more perks for the already-favored insurance industry and hastening the demise of Medicare, then I suggest it would be better to do nothing at all. As doctors learned long ago: first do no harm.

— Arthur Coday Jr., Shoreline

Raise age of consent, make exception for ‘sexting’

While important problems are addressed in the proposed child pornography bills, a tragic inconsistency remains [“Bolster the fight against child porn,” Opinion, Mar. 1]. The logic presented for these bills is to protect minors under 18 from child abuse. However, the age of consent in Washington is 16.

State laws permit a 16-year-old to have sex with any and all takers. However, it would be a felony to have a picture on a cellphone of her flashing a breast. To be consistent, either raise the age of consent to 18 or reduce the definition of child pornography to 16.

Also, while “sexting” is less common than smoking or drinking, these crimes are misdemeanors. About 15 percent of 16-year-olds have sent an explicit image of themselves. With this law, a minor sexting a friend faces the same legal peril as a distributor of child pornography involving 7-year-olds. There should be an exception in the law for possessor of a few images of someone close in age. Finally, people engaged in “sexting” should not be put on the sex-offender registry. His or her presence on the registry dilutes the impact of the sex offenders we should be wary of.

While I trust Rob McKenna to be reasonable with this law, he will not always be the state’s attorney general. The laws need to reflect what we as a state intend.

— Bill Hughes, Bellevue

Matter of time before blood hits the walls

Editor, The Times:

In the article in The Times about Starbucks and its run-in with the gun-rights crowd [“Starbucks stuck in crossfire for allowing guns in stores,” Business, Mar. 4], Open Carry’s co-founder Mike Stollenwerk used an appropriate metaphor to describe how their members initially used to meet at Peet’s Coffee: “That’s where the Open Carry group started to coagulate.”

Was he intentionally referring to what happens to blood when it’s splattered on walls and display cases or gathers in pools on the ground? I fear that it is only a matter of time before this latest round of loosened gun restrictions — both in our national parks and urban settings like Starbucks — results in a confrontation of some sort that explodes into serious injury or death because one or more of the parties involved is legally packing heat and uses it in disproportionate force to settle some dispute or perceived slight.

Americans need to realize that beneath all the clamor about freedom and rights to carry guns wherever people want, there is a cynical and manipulative formula at work. More guns in more people’s hands will not make us safer. It does, however, result in increased gun sales, which translate into major profits for gun manufacturers and their lobbyists, who wave the flag all the way to the bank and use the proceeds to persuade legislators to further roll back restrictions on all manner of firearms.

Of course, I’d hesitate in pointing all this out to the guy with the camo shirt and the handgun on his hip sitting in my local coffee shop. Somehow, brandishing a loaded weapon has a way of chilling public discourse — maybe that’s the intent?

— Ron Dickson, Seattle

Blame on both sides

There seems to be an ad missing in the lost-and-found section of the classifieds because advocates on both sides of the gun-control debate seemed to have lost their common sense. I have to believe everyone can do better than this.

Shame on gun carriers for carelessly using an innocent Seattle-based company to deliberately provoke anti-gun activists. They’ve turned Starbucks into a new kind of gun victim. If they insist on publicly demonstrating their right to bear arms, they should at least find a way to do so that doesn’t target one company over its competitors.

And be smart about it, for crying out loud. Do gun carriers really think they outnumber the Starbucks latte-sipping customers who don’t accessorize with shiny pistols? With this thoughtless course of action, they may force a company to institute a policy that further limits their right to bear arms when they claim that’s not what they want. I’m starting to wonder if gun toters aren’t just the crazy uncle who likes to say inappropriate things at family reunions to see what kind of reaction he might get. If they’re bored, they should try bridge lessons instead.

Shame on the gun-control advocates for taking the bait and reacting with little more thought than the gun bearers themselves. The Legislature has been in session for a couple of months. Why are you marching in front of coffee shops instead of in front of the lawmakers who are better positioned to change state laws.

No responsible company — providing health benefits for its employees during these tough economic times — needs this right now. If they must protest a company, why not take the cause to places like Walmart where guns are sold a few aisles down from salad dressing?

Where’s the playground teacher to stop this silliness so both sides can make their case in what was, until now, a legitimate debate?

— Charla Neuman, Tacoma

Give baristas bulletproof vests

Geez Louise, I couldn’t have made a better argument for not having guns in Starbucks than Starbucks did!

The Seattle Times’ article regarding adopting a ban on openly carrying guns in Starbucks stores would force its employees — called partners — “to ask law-abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.”

We know how us Seattleites value our coffee, but do they expect a shootout over customers being asked to sip without guns? What if a partner shorts a gun toter on whipped cream, shots of espresso or that little wrap-around-the-cup thing that keeps the heat down? Maybe partners need to make fantastic coffee drinks while packing and wearing a bulletproof vest?

— Karen Babeaux, Shoreline

Teens not the only offenders

Thank goodness there is a cellphone measure to target people — mostly teens, of course — who are talking and texting on the phone while driving [“Cellphone measure targets teen drivers,” page one, Mar. 4].

However, here’s what I don’t understand. There have been at least six instances in the last two months where I have watched someone either beside me or behind me weave or come close to hitting me because they were texting. None of them were teenagers.

I am not saying teens don’t text. I work in a high school and it’s almost impossible to stop them. But saying we are all going to be safe now because there is a measure to stop teens from texting in the car is ridiculous — not to mention that we have just offended a major population of people on the road who know they are not the only ones who text when they drive.

In fact, they are, quite frankly, better at texting than the housewife who ran into my lane head-on before she looked up from her phone and just about had a heart attack. I’m just saying the consequences should be the same for everyone.

— Jeannie Manning, Bothell

Only way to ensure safety

If cellphone-using drivers promise to destroy only their own property in accidents and to not injure anyone other than themselves, I would agree with Rep. Dan Roach that his is the “libertarian” freethinking stance. Given the difficulty of arranging this, however, I prefer to have the government meddlers make these dangerous drivers hang up.

— Sara Lorimer, Shoreline

State control limits underage drinking, funds government

I have been with the Liquor Control Board for 11 years as an assistant manager in a retail outlet on the Kitsap Peninsula. The article by Jimmie James and Zack Hudgins was excellent and pointed out so many positive things about liquor control [“State liquor stores protect the public,” Opinion, Feb. 26].

We are trained thoroughly to not only not sell to minors, but to visually watch autos that park in our store parking lot that contain possible minors who will send one person in to make a purchase for them. Everyone must come in and show their ID. We are very strict about upholding the law to not sell to underage kids and we take pride in doing an excellent job.

I recently returned from a trip to California and they were amazed we did not pay for our first response and EMT calls. They are funded partially from liquor-sales profits and initiatives voted in by our citizens to allocate adequate funding for those who protect and serve us. Our state-controlled liquor sales contribute funding for our state government and at the same time protect our citizens by reducing alcohol sales that could potentially cause injury and death to the citizens of this great state.

— Lana Ohara, Bremerton

Privatizing sales lowers price, increases choice

One has to wonder why The Times wastes ink on stuff like the babbling of the penners of last Friday’s special to the times spelling out the logical reasons why people will drink more if state-operated liquor stores are allowed to become private enterprises. Anyone with an IQ better than his or her belt size knows that logic has nothing to do with human behavior. I have lived in states where liquor is both sold in state stores and private ones and the whole op-ed is nonsense.

The only real differences are that liquor costs more here than in private-enterprise states and the selection of high-end products is poorer. The higher prices do nothing to curtail drinking, they only impose greater hardships on the families of excessive drinkers.

Believe this if nothing else: Minors will always get as much liquor as they want even if you sell the stuff only out of a bank vault.

The real topper was the statement that liquor control has been around since prohibition; now there was a smashing success. As far as crime goes, crime actually comes with prohibition.

— Harold R. Pettus, Everett

End of the line for Boeing commuter service?

Quite a few Boeing employees from Everett have been deeply involved in trying to get Community Transit to modify the service eliminations it is hell bent on ramming through [“No more Sunday bus rides?” page one, Mar. 4]. We have been busy attending all the public comment meetings, board of directors meetings, writing letters and meeting with our elected officials at the local, state and federal levels.

If Community Transit gets away with the eliminations of Boeing commuter service from East Snohomish County and North Snohomish County, 800 to 1,000 or more motor vehicles would be put back on I-405, I-5 and Highway 2 every morning and afternoon. The already overcapacity Boeing Everett plant parking lot will be overflowing.

Boeing’s Everett employment will only be growing in the next few years and Boeing is Snohomish County’s largest employer. This year alone, another thousand engineers may be moving north. Eliminating commuter service to Boeing is shortsighted and pure folly — especially in light of the fact that the majority of Community Transit’s revenue is derived from sales tax.

Community Transit picked the low-hanging fruit and the most vulnerable of their ridership to address the budget shortfall it claims is driving it to make these drastic cuts. If the cuts in Sunday service and DART [dial-a-ride transportation] — which impact the disabled more than anyone — were happening in King County, I believe that the outcry would have been loud enough to stop Community Transit management in their tire tracks.

— David L. Clay, Snohomish

Address demand, not supply side of problem

Editor, The Times:

There is a glaring omission from Richard Stearns op-ed [“Haiti: 9.0 on the Poverty Scale,” Opinion, Mar. 3]. In light of the fact that poverty comes from a lack of access to resources — that are extremely limited in Haiti’s case — and the fact that Haiti has the highest population density and birthrate in the Western Hemisphere, trying to increase the supply side while ignoring the demand side is pure folly.

Most Christian organizations decry any family planning avenues to the poverty problem but history has proved them wrong since the time of Thomas Malthus —more than 200 years ago. Stearns’ suggestions will not grow trees or build up a viable infrastructure. Nor will it make the Haitians self-sustaining. They will continue to need outside aid and that need will only increase if the increasing demand is not addressed.

With more Chileans arriving on a seemingly regular basis, the sources of aid will be stretched and the problems will continue. However, the Stearnses of the world will continue to feel good about their shortsighted and narrow-minded attempts to help despite the unrelenting pain and suffering.

Remember, conventional wisdom says it is the thought that counts and intentions are more important than results; If it feels right it must be so.

— Parvin Baharloo, Seattle

Boeing’s threats allowed by National Labor Relations Act

Jim Albaugh, CEO of Boeing, is to be applauded for his remarkable candor. In his interview with The Times reporter Dominic Gates [“Boeing exec: ‘This is where we want to be,’.” page one, Mar. 2], he made it crystal clear that unless King, Pierce and Snohomish counties convert themselves into a virtually union-free environment, they can plan on saying bye bye to Boeing. Boeing management has been making this threat indirectly for more than 10 years.

Amazingly, there have been absolutely no reports in any media outlets about local business, political or labor leaders raising the question: “What makes Albaugh and other Boeing executives so confident that by moving Boeing facilities out of Puget Sound they can ensure low wages, minuscule benefits and a work force without enforceable rights in their new location?”

That confidence is rooted in Boeing’s awareness of Section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, which allows states such as South Carolina to impose financial starvation on labor unions by making it illegal for union security clauses to appear in collective bargaining agreements.

It is time for our local leaders — who have seen firsthand the great value of collective bargaining — to set in motion a movement to repeal Section 14(b). Such repeal would, inter alia, stop Boeing from making its periodic threats of departure.

— Daniel M. Mahoney, Mercer Island

Machinist magicians and overcompensated executives

Don’t worry, Boeing executive Jim Albaugh told The Times, the company wants to stay in the Seattle area, but the machinists who produce Boeing’s planes — and profits — just can’t strike. Albaugh added, “We can’t afford to continue the rate of escalation of wages.”

Albaugh referred to Boeing workers as “magicians.” With some entry rates beginning as low as $12 to $13 an hour, it would take a magician to raise a family in the Seattle area on that kind of income.

Once again, The Times referenced the 2008 machinists strike with no mention of Boeing’s $13 billion after-tax profit during the five years before the strike. As for the “escalation of wages,” the sidebar about Albaugh’s aerospace career refers to his 2009 bonus — awarded after the dreaded strike — “of more than $3 million in shares on top of his regular annual bonus of more than $1 million in shares.”

Escalation of wages indeed! Apparently the escalator works quite well for some.

— Geoff Mirelowitz, Seattle

Legislative committee backtracked before McGinn

The legislative committee, not Mayor Mike McGinn, is responsible for negating 13 years of planning on the 520 bridge [“.‘Town-halled’ to death on Highway 520” Opinion, Jan. 26].

McGinn’s bait-and-switch on the future 520 option — focusing on rail and transit — is a bold and refreshing response to the first bait-and-switch by the legislative committee that inserted the new car-oriented Option A+ at the very end of the study and planning process.

The legislative committee presented Option A+ ahead of the release of the supplemental draft environmental impact statement— a premature action apparently not based on adequate environmental information — and negated 13 years of planning and two years of work by a state-led mediation group of stakeholders who had already reached consensus on the principles of several options.

Given a choice, I prefer Mayor McGinn’s bait-and-switch to that of the legislative committee.

— Annie Stixrood, Seattle

Option A+ creates a bridge to nowhere

I beg to differ with The Times’ editorial that we are “Town Halled to death on 520.” The final design recommendations for the Legislative Workgroup were issued in a report on Nov. 17 with the public comment time to end on Dec. 4 — hardly adequate time for a decision of this scope.

The A+ design would have a major negative impact on the Arboretum. At 40 feet above the lake with a 10-foot concrete wall to “abate” the noise, we could probably receive the “ugliest bridge in America” award.

Also, there is no room for all those cars to drive into Seattle because there is no capacity to receive them. 520 is the new bridge to nowhere.

— Kathleen O’Connor, Seattle

Sea-wall decision should go to the voters

The article regarding Mayor Mike McGinn’s sea-wall proposal effectively addressed the mayor’s plan to pay for the wall, but I remain unclear about the City Council’s plans [“Council balks at sea-wall vote,” NWWednesday, Mar. 3]. I personally believe that they should include this measure on the May ballot so that the people can decide.

According to the Department of Transportation, more than $3 million has been spent repairing sections of the sea wall since the 2001 earthquake. More repairs will follow if the city doesn’t replace the wall soon enough — money that could be spent replacing the entire sea wall.

There is a 10 percent chance that the wall will fail should another earthquake occur in the next 10 years. If we don’t experience a severe earthquake, there is still the possibility that it will fail due to Puget Sound’s corrosive nature. Did Mayor McGinn’s $243 million proposal consider the environmental ramifications of replacing the wall?

In the wake of Haiti and Chile’s earthquakes, CNN listed the Pacific Northwest as the fourth most likely area to experience a major earthquake. We are less prepared than other major cities along our coast, but a new sea wall is a promising step in the right direction.

— Alena Borgatti, Seattle

Tea party too often marginalized

Editor, The Times:

Joni Balter’s column gives us the liberal evaluation of the tea party, which is “an amorphous group known mostly for its collective anger” [“Voters with short attention spans could lure Rossi to the ballot,” Opinion, Feb. 25].

Then, Balter cherry picks a perceived negative comment from distant Asotin County. There, a tea-party participant called for Sen. Patty Murray to be hung — hung out to dry, a term used by common folks meaning defeated. But a self-serving elitist would have a vision of violence. Too bad The Times didn’t get acquainted with the common, local tea-party folks last year. They are mostly nice people just disgusted with the establishment.

Further, the column suggests the anger would turn away the independents from a Republican candidate. Strangely, the tea party is made up largely of the average independent. Sen. Scott Brown used the independents’ conservatism to get elected in Massachusetts and Brown’s strategy will be emulated throughout the Republican Party — including a new respect for a revitalized conservatism.

As usual, the arrogant liberals marginalize opposing philosophies and resort to unfounded name calling.

— Don Wilbur, University Place

Movement hypocritical when assessing spending

Thank you for the article on the tea partyers [“No rainout for tea partyers,” NWSunday, Feb. 28]. I found it an interesting, if puzzling, reading. I am puzzled because these folks have become so shrill over government spending.

My question is: If they are so concerned about the deficit, where were they for the eight years of the George W. Bush administration when Bush enacted an estimated $1.8 trillion in tax cuts for the rich? Even wealthy people such as Bill Gates Sr. and Bill Clinton campaigned against this, saying they didn’t need the money from the tax breaks and that it should stay in the coffers of the U.S. Treasury.

Where were the tea partyers when President Bush launched his unnecessary war with Iraq, which is now estimated to ultimately cost us $2 trillion?

At least the money President Obama spent on the stimulus plan prevented the country from going into another Depression. And the money spent on health-care reform will help ordinary Americans in a big way.

It would seem that, for the tea partyers, if a Republican president spends money like a drunken sailor, that’s OK. But if a Democratic president attempts it, they go nuclear.

What exactly is in that tea they’re drinking?

— Dave Richards, Bainbridge Island

I hate government … for different reasons

Tea partyers claim to hate government. I do too — at least some parts.

I hate it when insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists succeed in buying Congress to block health-care reform. I hate it when the fear-mongering neocons succeeds in starting tragic wars, costing U.S. taxpayers a trillion dollars and counting.

I hate it when right-wingers pass an unneeded Patriot Act to take away my civil liberties. I hate it when Republicans succeed in cutting taxes for the wealthy, eliminating $2 trillion in needed revenue and putting more burden on me. I hate it when conservatives keep needed regulation out of our financial markets, then force taxpayers to bail out banks and companies “too big to fail.”

Locally, I hate it when our state sales tax keeps going up instead of just installing a much more equitable state income tax.

So, I guess I agree with tea partyers: There’s a lot to be upset about with government today.

— Dave Gamrath, Seattle

Attack on Beck wrought with irony

It is disappointing that David Sirota desperately tries to equate the violent pogroms against Jews and blacks to the legitimate criticism of a political belief system [“Glenn Beck’s movement: It CAN happen here,” Opinion, Mar. 1].

Sirota misconstrues the message in the speech given by Glenn Beck. The “progressive movement” is a belief system not based on race or creed. It is correct, courageous and patriotic to argue for the demise of a belief system one finds harmful to society.

Sirota hysterically tries to induce readers to believe that Beck suggests acts of violence and hatred. In fact, Beck challenged listeners to assume responsibility for their own actions and to strive for greatness for themselves and fellow citizens.

Sirota derides conservatives as “once principled,” then derides Beck as having a “porcine complexion” and being “drenched in sweat.” Sirota furthers the irony by accusing Beck of using “coded and menacing language.” Why did the left change their label of “liberal” back to the coded “progressive”?

I will look for future columns by Sirota in the comics section.

— Chris Gormley, Everett

Reactionary pandering to the ultra-left

David Sirota’s knife-fighting skills are evident in “Glenn Beck’s movement: It CAN happen here.” Too bad that he uses the wrong tense: It HAS happened here and this is the problem.

The creep of progressivism is the problem, not the solution. Too many writers like Sirota toss “progressive” around as if the readers know and accept the notion that “progress toward equality” is liberals’ banner for redistribution of all wealth and all accomplishment. It is apparent he recognizes a willful ignoramus by looking in the mirror on his elevated Denver perch — the capital of The Empty Quarter.

Beck’s delivery style is definitely grating, but Sirota’s attempt to equate that with some of history’s most vile national leaders shows just how desperate the radical leftists have become. Sirota should do better, but it is evident he can’t.

— Richard Starr, Sammamish

Initiative causes simultaneous spending and cutting

I agree with Danny Westneat that we elect public officials to make decisions and lead [“Divining the will of the people,” NWSunday, Feb. 28]. Government by poll does not work and more importantly for Washington state: trying to run our state budget process by initiative does not work.

We voters want low taxes. We also want good education, transportation and public safety. The only problem is that our initiatives don’t have to make the numbers add up.

In 1993, Washington voters passed the “three strikes” initiative to lock up prisoners for life — a very expensive idea. The same year we also passed I-601 to limit taxes. Neither of these initiatives detailed where the money would come from. Likewise, in 2000, voters passed I-728 to limit class sizes — which also costs money — while also passing I-722 to limit taxes.

Sure, I could vote for less taxes and more programs all day, but I’m not the one who has to make the trade-offs or hard choices. That’s what we elect legislators to do and we should let them do their job. It’s not a perfect process, but it’s far superior to “pseudo government” by initiative.

— Melanie Mayock, Seattle

Partisan politics created budget deficit

With all due respect, I disagree with David Johnson’s letter that supported bypassing I-960 and raising more taxes [“Bypassing Initiative 960: Alternative to taxes is unacceptable,” Northwest Voices, Mar. 1]. I believe The Seattle Times’ editorial calling for more fundamental tightening of operational purse strings was on point [“Democrats should have kept two-thirds rule,” Opinion, Feb. 28].

Just look at the business basics. Gov. Chris Gregoire and her predecessor added more than 14,500 public employees. After giving public employees excellent pensions and benefits over the years, our governor double-dipped for her voter personnel by significantly jumping their salaries when she took office. Also, she waived more than $100 million of annual revenue sharing from Indian casinos — the only state in the nation to do so.

Ironically, she got substantial contributions from both groups for her political campaign. In my personal and professional opinion, partisan politicians with law degrees that give away money to their constituencies just do not seem to understand the business of managing a budget — or have an interest in doing so.

— Harvey Gillis, Bellevue

Slain teacher deserved protection from law

Editor, The Times:

After reading the article “Infatuated man shoots, kills teacher” [NWSaturday Feb. 27] about yet another young woman being killed by a rejected ex-suitor — or non-suitor — I feel physically ill. How many more young women must die at the hand of a jilted suitor before we change our laws to reflect the seriousness of these situations?

She had done everything correctly: She repeatedly told him to leave her alone in front of witnesses, she had had someone else warn him off verbally — indicating that others knew about his behavior and that she was not the only one who thought his actions were wrong — she had a one-year-old court order for him to keep away, she let her co-workers know about her sense of vulnerability, he had been thrown out of her workplace before, she had the courage to call the police herself when he showed up at her workplace in the past. What else was she supposed to do?

Besides the predictable gun lobby and the NRA getting headlines saying she should have gotten a gun to protect herself or gotten some training, what else could have prevented this?

Recently, we have seen legislative bills arise because police died or were wounded by someone with a bad record who was out on parole. Prosecutors are clambering for declarations that no bail be allowed in these special cases.

How about extending the same courtesy to women at risk who have followed the letter of the law? Let’s change our laws to save them before they are killed in situations that clearly demonstrate a high risk.

— Jeff Wedgwood, Issaquah

Misused label of killer as ‘infatuated’

Regarding another case of coldblooded killing of a kind and accomplished woman by a spurned male, my dictionary defines infatuated as “characterized by foolish or irrational love or desire.” Synonyms listed are “fond, doting and overaffectionate.”

Jed Waits — the coward who laid in wait with a gun and shot special-education teacher Jennifer Paulson — was not infatuated. He may have been dangerously insane, cruelly power hungry or filled with rage, but “love” or even “irrational desire” does not begin to describe such depraved and wanton disregard for life.

Infatuation implies innocent puppy love but Waits wasn’t foolish, doting or fond of Paulson — no matter how many teddy bears he sent her. He was brutal and The Times should be more careful of the words it chooses for its headlines in order to avoid diminishing the magnitude of the outrage and avoid excusing violence against women.

— Michael Schein, Seattle

Arming teacher might have prevented murder

How in the world could Jennifer Paulson have been brutally murdered by someone who had an anti-harassment order in force against him? Oh I get it: Criminals don’t have to obey our laws.

All U.S. citizens — even if they are teachers at a public school — should have the fundamental right to defend themselves. As a local news commentator said with respect to this sad event, “Cops can’t be everywhere.”

So why shouldn’t we be given the right to act as our own cop anytime, anywhere?

— Mark L. Holmes, Kenmore

Giving guns to teachers akin to arming airline passengers

After reading Joy Mauser’s letter about arming teachers [“Guns and teachers: Roach is right,” Northwest Voices, Feb. 27], I just had to submit another point of view.

Forty-some years ago on the TV program “All in the Family,” Archie Bunker generated a big laugh when he said that the way to end hijacking was to issue each passenger a gun as they boarded an airplane. The irony, of course, was the realization that the damage caused by the solution would be worse than the small risk of a hijacking. Unfortunately, far too many gun advocates might actually support that position today.

For example, take Mauser’s suggestion to “arm our teachers.” She provides no evidence that such an action would be beneficial. It wouldn’t have prevented Jennifer Paulson’s shooting in Tacoma. It wouldn’t have prevented the recent shooting in Littleton, Colo. — in this case the suspect was subdued by unarmed men. It wouldn’t have prevented the shootings at either Inskip Elementary School in Tennessee or the University of Alabama shooting — in both of those cases the shooter was a teacher.

Arming the teachers would more likely result in the teacher being the first person shot. Then, not only would the adult leader be eliminated, but the shooter could obtain yet another weapon.

— Evan Stoll, Kingston

No time, money to train teachers in gun etiquette

Sen. Pam Roach says arming teachers would cut down on school shootings. Huh? How much gun training can be jammed into the full schedules of our educators? Will teachers have to pay for ricochet-proof ammo out of their own pocket?

Seventy percent of the trained law-enforcement officers who die in the line of duty do so without ever touching their weapons. In chaotic moments, even they make life-and-death mistakes. Will teachers with limited training do better? Let teachers do what they are trained to do: teach.

Refine the curriculum so that all understand that the ax, the plow, the telegraph and the small-pox-infested blanket played a role equal to that of the gun in “conquering” a continent. The gun is not a sacred national icon and it entitles no one to be judge, jury and executioner.

The NRA tells us the answer to every problem is more guns. But an arms race with criminals and the mentally unstable benefits no one but gun manufacturers. The safety of our children is best served by treating the gun like the dangerous tool it is and by giving our children — and perhaps Sen. Roach — other strategies for handling problems.

— Mark Griswold, Mill Creek

Claims about best health care in world are a bunch of hogwash

At the health-care summit on Thursday, several senators and representatives stated that, “The United States has the best health-care system in the world” [“Dems may go it alone as both sides dig in heels,” page one, Feb. 26]. What arrogance!

However, they are so obviously false that these claims should be consigned to a bullpen at a nearby ranch. There are now more than 30 million U.S. citizens who have no easy access to health care. If asked, they likely would rate our system something similar to health care in the Third World.

Even more, those who presently rely on health insurance supplied by their employers are one layoff away from joining those people already bereft of health coverage. This adds up to a lot of people who either have or could lose their access to health care in the U.S.

The practice of medicine in the U.S. is very good if one can afford it, but the system overall is not good if one can’t. Compared with other advanced countries, we fare poorly.

Members of Congress who utter such nonsense have great, free and lifelong health coverage. If only we all could be so fortunate. Once we elevate them to Congress, they thereafter cease to be “of the people.” Those more obtuse congressmen, also cease to be “for the people” as well.

Beware those uttering such bold claims because they don’t have a good grasp of our situation.

— Richard Andler, Seattle

Those starving for health care need coverage, not ‘cake’

I read about some of the comments made by Republican senators at President Obama’s health-care summit. I was particularly struck by a comment by Sen. John Barrasso from Wyoming.

I guess they do things differently in Wyoming, but I was pretty shocked that his proposal for health-care reform would be to do away with health insurance except for catastrophic care. Sen. Barrasso felt that people would make better health-care choices if they were forced to pay for their general health care.

Is he kidding? Does he have no sense of the struggles that are facing people in this country with regard to health care? Does he not understand that people are desperate concerning medicine and doctor bills? To say that people in this country would be better off paying for their health care is like Marie Antoinette saying that the poor people in France who had no bread should just eat cake.

Sen. Barrasso and his Republican colleagues should be ashamed of themselves and owe the American people an apology.

— Sandy Kraus, Seattle

Pre-existing clauses require state, not federal, oversight

Paul Krugman, thank you for today’s column [“Memo to Democrats: Just do it,” Opinion, Feb. 27]. Health-care reform isn’t so much about the quality of health care as it is about the money that pays for it.

Concerns about pre-existing conditions may be real, but they are applicable only to individuals who have allowed their health insurance to lapse. Pre-existing condition clauses exist to encourage equitable contributions to the financing of health-care plans. Buying health insurance after you’re sick is like buying auto insurance after an accident — too little, too late.

Not every state needs a federal watchdog. Our state insurance commissioners already regulate the industry with mandates for minimum benefits, maximum annual rate increases and a reasonable three-month limit on pre-existing conditions with credit for partial coverage during the three-month look-back period.

If our state government is doing its job, the federal government doesn’t need to reform it. And if for some reason state insurance commissioners aren’t doing their jobs, then maybe the federal government should address that problem instead of trying to tackle sweeping federal reform. I say this not as a Republican, but as someone who already sees a strong government presence in existing health-care legislation.

— Teresa Mosteller, Seattle

Have waited to long to set aside health-care reform again

The last time Congress “set aside” health reform, my head was bald, my husband and I were childless and our backyard was a wasteland. 18 years later, the pre-existing condition exclusion still terrorizes millions of Americans, but 30-foot trees stretch skyward in our yard, unruly hair springs from my scalp and our teenage daughter plays high-school volleyball.

I remember the bleak, barren days all too well: My HMO had canceled my insurance just as cancer threatened my life. I became the poster child for reform back in the early ’90s, urging lawmakers to end such insurance company abuses. When reform failed, we planted a small garden to inspire a bit of hope.

At long last, health-reform legislation that will rein in insurance company greed and help everyday people is on the brink of passage. The measure proposed by President Obama will end the pre-existing condition nightmare once and for all.

Politicians muster this sort of courage only once in a generation. This is no time to hit the pause button.

— Roberta Riley, Seattle

Needed to cease intimidation and revitalize downtown

Editor, The Times:

A big “bravo” for Councilmember Tim Burgess for speaking out to make our downtown areas safer from overly aggressive panhandlers and unruly crowds [“Panhandling crackdown urged,” page one, Feb. 25].

Of course, everybody has a right to be there but not the right to intimidate others. Visitors and shoppers would simply stay away from downtown and take their business elsewhere, adding to the recession woes of many fine downtown shops. With much concern, we see that some downtown shops have left already, are consolidating or scaling back. A mass exodus of downtown shops would be a disaster for our beautiful city.

Thankfully, the city’s recent efforts to curb some unacceptable behavior are showing results. Walking in downtown streets has already become much more pleasant. This will go a long way to keep our downtown areas vibrant and inviting.

— Wolfgang Mack, Seattle

Focus solely on spurring business, not on a few individuals

As a downtown resident and woman, I am concerned about the City Council’s proposal to crack down on panhandling. While downtown has its fair share of panhandlers, I have yet to encounter one who has been threatening or aggressive.

In fact, on my walk to work, I experience just the opposite: courteous and friendly panhandlers who are respectful of my personal space. Also on my walk to work are plenty of empty storefronts and businesses going under in the downtown core. Seems like the council should be focused on this larger malaise than targeting a few individuals.

— Shefali Ranganathan, Seattle

Panhandling a ‘basic safety net’

There goes my “plan B.” I figured that when I lose my job, house and Basic Health Plan, I can at least ask people for spare change. City Councilmember Tim Burgess would take even that away. What a terrible idea.

Let’s defeat this on free-speech grounds as well as protecting the most basic of safety nets in a worsening economy.

— Henry Noble, Seattle

Subverting people’s will with taxes leads to freeloaders

I was pretty outraged to learn that our Democratic governor and Legislature struck down the initiative [I-960] requiring a two-thirds majority vote in the Legislature to raise taxes [“ ‘Will of the people’ often subjected to tinkering,” page one, Feb. 25]. I guess the will of the voters doesn’t matter to them at all.

I usually vote for the person and not the party, but I intend to vote a straight Republican ticket in the next state election. I don’t agree with the Republicans on some issues — like abortion and gay marriage — but I have to vote with controlling taxes as my main concern.

I understand the need for roads, schools, police and fire service, but the cuts the Democrats refuse to make are primarily social services and college assistance. I have to pay for my housing, food and medical care. I paid for my own college by working and paying my own way — I didn’t even live with mommy and daddy and I actually supported myself.

I don’t feel obliged to pay even more than the already excessive taxes I pay so that others can have for free what I had to work for. When did the “land of the free” become “the land of the freeloader”?

— Dennis Doucette, Auburn

Alternative to taxes is unacceptable

I hate taxes! I am retired, living on a fixed income and really hate it when the state raises my taxes. But I am willing to have the state raise my taxes now, as the alternative is unacceptable. We send our legislators to Olympia to spend our money well and to address many needs: education, health care, public security, the environment, etc. Any further cuts are unacceptable to me.

Tim Eyman has complained that our legislators are ignoring the will of the voters by raising taxes. He’s in a fortunate position from which to complain. Not being a public servant, he has no constituents to whom he must answer. He also has no obligation to students, the poor, the hungry or the sick — other than a moral one that he chooses to ignore. He only answers to the benefactors paying his salary.

Our legislators have made massive cuts to programs. It’s now time for all of us to step up and address the needs of our community so that we can limit the pain from the current recession.

— Darrell Johnson, Bellevue

I-960 is paradoxical

It seems odd to me that an initiative that received 51 percent voter approval can require a 67 percent “majority” to approve any tax increases — including closing loopholes that will “increase” taxes for the beneficiary. What happened to the 15 percent of voters whose interests have been denied?

If an initiative would require a 67 percent majority, then it should be required to pass with 67 percent voter approval. Anything less denies a voice to a large portion of the population.

— Paula Joneli, Des Moines

Understanding the initiative

I teach state constitutional law at the UW School of Law. Recently, a conservative and a liberal friend of mine jointly asked me why the Washington Legislature is able to override the I-960 requirement that tax increases be adopted by a two-thirds vote of each chamber. The Seattle Times’ readers might be interested in the answer I sent them.

First principle: The Washington State Constitution does not permit amendments to itself by initiative. Initiatives are just a mechanism for passing statutes.

Second principle: Ordinary statutes can be amended at any time by the Legislature.

Third principle: Under the state constitution, a two-thirds vote of each chamber is required to amend statutes during the first two years after voter approval.

Fourth principle: After the first two years, a statute adopted through the initiative process may be amended at any time by the Legislature, just like any other legislation.

Applying these principles — since it has been more than two years since I-960 was passed — the Legislature can amend that statute, suspend it, repeal it or do whatever a majority decides.

— Hugh Spitzer, Seattle

Women often targeted by gun-happy misogynists

Is it any wonder that the most unstable among us, like the man who lay in ambush of a Tacoma special-education teacher [“Slain teacher had been stalked by gunman,” Seattletimes.com, Feb. 26], feel they can use their awesome firepower on another human being who spurns them?

The same situation applied to an Orlando woman who formerly worked as a waitress at Hooters — in order to make ends meet. Like the special-ed teacher, she tried to get a restraining order on a man who had become dangerously obsessed with her. She wound up being shot nine times in a parking lot.

In a recent article in The New York Times called “The Women’s Crusade,” authors Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn point out that the brutality inflicted on many women and girls may be the central issue facing the 21st century — just as slavery was to the 19th and totalitarianism was to the 20th.

Those who own a hideous variety of military-style weapons throughout the United States are overwhelmingly male and are far too obsessed with the “stopping power” of their little arsenals. While most of them are law-abiding, those who become desperate — usually after women or life disappoint them — become far too much of a threat to society as a whole.

— Ron Charach, Toronto, Ont.

Assessment needed to address key concerns

While it’s easy to ridicule the long process of reaching a final decision on the 520 bridge, it’s still just as important to get it right — especially given the massive price tag and the huge seven-year construction impact on our region [“Town-halled to death on Highway 520,” Opinion, Feb. 26]. Aside from the light-rail issue and poorly conceived interchange at Montlake, there are at least two other key flaws to the current proposal that must be addressed.

The current plan only allows one HOV lane to connect directly from 520 to I-5 and it reverses just like the I-5 express lanes do currently. The current plan would enable continuous HOV only for Eastside commuters coming to Seattle in the morning and heading back to the Eastside in the evening. This means that the worst traffic segment — evening westbound commuters — would still face a clogged commute as these new HOV lanes merge back with general-purpose lanes as they do currently.

The second and infuriating issue to Seattle residents — in Capitol Hill, Eastlake, Portage Bay and Roanoke Park — is the issue of lids. These are documented in the Environmental Impact Statement as key mitigations for noise, pollution and pedestrian safety. However, the EIS states very clearly that these lids are the lowest priority and would be deferred in the event of insufficient funding.

Since there is already insufficient funding — more than $2 billion — it seems pretty obvious that these lids would be deferred or cut completely since there is no law or language that mandates that they be built. If they are going to be used to justify the environmental impact of the new roadway then they must be guaranteed and codified.

The “just-build-it” mentality is fine as long as we get it right. The city may be late to the table in terms of taking a firm stand on some of these poor design issues. But better now than hacking together yet another solution in the series of poorly implemented transit options — especially one that is likely to exceed $5 billion when all is said and done.

— Steve Silverberg, Seattle