Author: The Seattle Times: Northwest Voices

Move on Seattle

Just when I thought Seattle’s capacity for ditherfests couldn’t be topped by the Alaskan Way tunnel and viaduct issue, along comes the Highway 520 bridge again [“Rethink 520 span? Gregoire says no,” page one, Feb. 2].

Does anyone bother to count the emissions from bumper-to-bumper traffic, when engines idle away and spew pollutants because a major thoroughfare is miserably out-of-date with traffic demands? And I’m really tired of the NIMBYs [not-in-my-back-yard people] who, I’m willing to bet, are not major mass-transit users. They remind me of people who buy property near an airport and then complain about the noise.

The bridge replacement has now been debated for nearly 13 years with umpteen studies done. It’s time for this city to pull its head out of the moss and get on with it.

— John Neitzel, Seattle

Seattle needs fewer highway lanes, cars

I’m a native of Seattle who grew up when the houses were being torn down for I-5 through the heart of he city. Like most people I thought it was a good thing — only 15 minutes to Sea-Tac from North Seattle by car. Boy are those days gone.

I would like to think that kind of shortsighted ignorance is gone too. You can count me in with those who oppose more car lanes for the new incarnation of Highway 520. The last thing Seattle needs is more space for cars, which create more congestion, noise, accidents, air pollution and more oily stormwater to pollute our waters.

When will we stop converting our urban spaces into corridors of obnoxious, unnecessary blights to feed our automobile addiction? The governor and others who want to push ahead with the planned 520 upgrade need to stop, take a deep breath and really think about the future, not about the decision they made a couple years ago. There is always time to make the right decision.

— Mark Quinn, Olympia

Stop ‘Seattle Way’

The so-called “Seattle Way” sucks. I’m writing about planning ad infinitum and ad nauseam to replace the Highway 520 bridge and the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Seattle and the state — with much news coverage and citizen involvement — have been talking about these projects for years and it’s time to get on with the projects.

I’ve worked for more than 25 years in government community relations and communications and I completely appreciate and support the necessity to get significant, meaningful public comment on public — and private — projects. That public involvement must be carried out so it can influence the planning, design, construction and operation of public projects.

But at some point, it must end. And the resulting projects — if proven to be necessary during that same process — must turn from talk into reality.

I believe the case has been made, over and over again, for the need of the two transportation projects I’m writing about. They are essential public projects to enhance mobility of people in our growing region.

— Gary B Larson, Seattle

Just say no to studs

If folks want quieter road surfaces, we should join most other states by banning studded snow tires [“A lot is riding on ‘quiet pavement’.”, NWMonday Feb. 1]. Like little jackhammers, the sizzling sound one hears when studded tires go by is actually chipping away pieces of our road surfaces, increasing the roughness of the road and thus the noise generated when vehicles travel on them.

There is no need for fancy tests — just find a stretch of highway that is rutted and drive to the side of the lane where there is less stud damage. Smoothness and comfort improves while noise decreases markedly when one gets out of the ruts.

Safety and maintenance costs provide even better reasons to ban studs. The stud ruts collect water, increasing spray and hydroplaning problems. The studs result in the loss of about 15 percent of the tire’s basic traction on dry or wet roads, reducing traction for studded vehicles during that majority of driving that is on dry or just wet roads.

Banning studs would save taxpayer money by reducing the costs of maintaining our roads. The life of our roads’ pavement is drastically reduced by the accelerated surface erosion caused by studs.

Less than 3 percent of cars and light trucks in Western Washington use studs. Use is actually higher in the urban areas than in the rural areas. Keep this in mind if your legislator says banning studs is a divisive issue.

— Michael Tanksley, Woodinville

Not all adult family homes out of control

Editor, The Times:

Your article “Seniors for sale” [page one, Jan. 31] might leave the impression that adult family homes are out of control.

Until my father passed away a week ago, he resided at an adult family home here in Monroe. We dropped in several times unannounced before placing him there, and continued to do so afterward. He had both physical and emotional challenges that were addressed in a professional and timely fashion on an ongoing basis.

Your readers deserve to know that while there are egregious examples of apathy and greed among all business types, compassionate and skilled adult family homes are out there — my guess is that there are more of this kind than the kind highlighted in your article.

Yes, cost is an issue, but my father’s adult family home costs were middle-of-the-road for private pay and we had an agreement that would have allowed us to go to Medicare if we needed — which would have been this month or next. One key indicator for us was that we knew the integrity of the owner from both word-of-mouth and personal experience.

My suggestion: Start looking early, be diligent, get referrals from local agencies and people servicing seniors and talk to the caregivers themselves.

— Joel Selling, Monroe

Front page picture was victimizing

While The Times can be commended for continuing its expose of adult family home violations, your publication of [the picture] of that befuddled, bruised, half-naked senior citizen was as victimizing and cruel as any of the practices condemned in your article.

Your readers need a little relief now and then from your now-routine daily dose of page-one downers. The Jan. 31 edition, for example, could have been vastly improved by transposing the depressing front page continuation of “Seniors for sale” with the uplifting B-section feature story: “Moved in and ready to grow.”

— Dean Trier, Redmond

Less space for investigative reporting

I am so appreciative of your investigative work on senior housing. The decline of the newspaper industry is producing fewer and fewer investigative stories.

Bloggers and online blowhards can’t and won’t do the kind of investigative research critical to sustaining our democracy: deep, thorough stories about government and industry that produce no profit, but are important to know.

— Dave Ahlers, Seattle

Adopt local, not Haiti’s children

The U.S. State Department is being flooded with calls from Americans interested in adopting Haitian children [“Haiti holds Americans trying to take kids out of country,” News, Feb. 1]. No doubt these are caring adults who feel compelled to solve the tragedy of a child left without a family.

Yet, have they ever considered the more than 150,000 children in the U.S. who also need a permanent home and family? These children have been waiting months — and often years — for an adoptive home. For some, that wait will prove fruitless and they will reach adulthood without that foundational sense of family and home.

We no longer have orphanages in the U.S. Children without a family, or whose parents cannot provide adequate care, are placed in foster care — where they wait and hope to be adopted. There are roughly 1,750 children in Washington state foster care who are waiting to be adopted — and there will be more.

They aren’t victims of a natural disaster, but they are equally innocent. They have suffered the societal disaster of parental abuse, neglect and abandonment and need loving permanent homes.

I applaud the Americans looking to relieve the suffering in Haiti. Yet I encourage these potential adoptive parents to consider the children in our community. There are children of all ages, all backgrounds and all circumstances here who also need loving, permanent families.

— John Morse, Seattle

U.S. international aid not adequate

Haiti’s suffering is beginning to fade into the background of our lives and newspapers. A gratifying number of Americans gave what they could in order to ease the burden of this disaster for our neighbors, believing that this is consistent with our view of ourselves as extraordinarily generous.

However, most of us would be shocked to find out how stingy our government is when it comes to international aid. Repeatedly, studies show that the United States falls at the bottom of developed nations when international aid is calculated as a percent of gross national income. Over and over again, our country has pledged amounts of foreign aid that are minuscule compared to what we spend on defense — and then failed to even come close to meeting those pledges.

And while we’re on the subject, humanitarian aid given at the time of a natural disaster is not the most effective way to deliver aid. If we were serious about being effective, we would join other developed nations and set up an emergency fund administered through the United Nations that could be immediately tapped in the event of natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis. Then we would feel justifiably generous and not be reading about airlifts diverted from Haiti because no one could guarantee payment for them.

Let’s insist that our elected officials respect our desire to do our share and quit playing “Scrooge” behind our backs.

— Marsha Hedrick, Seattle

Two goals: male birth-control pill, sustainable agriculture

There are two fundamental ways in which the Gates Foundation could pursue their technological agenda, deflect criticism that they are not bolstering basic-health needs and assist in the amelioration of adverse climate-change effects [“$10b for vaccines, plus a plea from Gates,” page one, Jan. 30].

One would be to deploy the vast intellectual resources of the Gates Foundation to focus on the speedy development of a safe and effective male birth-control pill. Distribution by the foundation of sought-after immunization drugs would be tied in with the distribution of the pill.

Relieving economically and helpless women of the burdens of relentless birthing would free up survival resources and possibly lead to self-actualization. New cultural priorities would concomitantly reduce the population pressures on the nonrenewable resources of our imperiled planet, including its finite ability to absorb the carbon monoxide each human produces — requiring roughly seven mature trees to absorb.

The other way the foundation could really make a true difference would be to tie its funding with the incentive-supported promotion of ecologically sustainable agriculture. This would require a commitment by recipients to transition from environmentally destructive meat-based systems, which contribute enormously to deforestation for service-animal feed (such as soy beans) — and according to many credible sources, utilize more fossil fuels than any other industry — to plant-based systems that are ecologically compatible with the given region.

Of course, to accomplish a quid pro quo of this order would no doubt require the highest caliber of diplomacy and visionary thinking. Since the Gates Foundation is apparently dedicated to its newfound ambassadorial roles, I have no doubt they are up to the challenge if the will is there.

— Valerie Bittner, Kenmore

Vaccinate and then educate

Bill and Melinda Gates’ great humanitarian effort to vaccinate the children of the world — so that an estimated 8 million children will live who might otherwise have died — is heartwarming.

But what will these 8 million children do if their mothers are exhausted by another child already on the way? How will they be fed? How will they be educated? And most important, how will they ever be able to find a job when the underdeveloped world already has huge numbers of unemployed?

Having worked in education for four years in a developing country, I know that jobs are a critical survival need. Without education and real jobs, the future for these 8 million children is bleak.

If the Gates Foundation were to follow [Bill Gates’] mother Mary Gates’ belief in contraception education, it would make me truly hopeful for the world’s children. Catholics who let their beliefs ignore the plight of mothers and the realities of raising a child must be challenged.

— Alene H Moris, Seattle

McGinn: reconsider ‘ready-aim-fire’ approach

Editor, The Times:

I am writing about Mayor Mike McGinn’s proposed reduction of 200 employees in the strategic adviser, manager and executive classifications [“McGinn postponing job cuts to boost employee morale,” NWMonday, Feb. 1].

While I am concerned about my own position, I am also concerned about my colleagues and the valuable work we all do on behalf of the city. The majority of these positions are not “political appointees” as the mayor contended in his campaign, but are civil service [positions], hired competitively or legitimately reclassified. We perform a variety of distinct jobs to maintain and enhance the level and quality of Seattle’s services and programs and to keep the city running. There are many important programs and services that will be impacted by these reductions.

In November 2009, the Seattle City Council passed a balanced budget for 2010. This budget reflected a great deal of careful deliberation and analysis by the council and included thoughtful citizen input. It funded the programs and the positions that supported them, which Mayor McGinn is now targeting for layoffs. With the mayor’s process, there will be no opportunity for the City Council or citizens to have input regarding programs and services that will be adversely impacted by these reductions.

Instead of these arbitrary politically motivated and potentially discriminatory reductions, I am requesting that the council encourage the mayor to reconsider his “ready-aim-fire” approach to a more reasoned and broad-based one — which includes a broad assessment of all programs and their associated priorities, costs and value to the city as part of the 2011/2012 budget process. This allows for appropriate input and guidance from the council and the citizens.

— Sandi Fukumoto, city strategic adviser, Seattle

Pandering to morale humorous

You gotta admire the new mayor’s sense of humor in postponing Seattle city government job cuts because employee morale was being affected.

After all, the new hiring the last guy did had no positive effect, Seattle now struggles to meet payroll. But instead of worrying about his responsibilities to the overtaxed and underrepresented taxpayers of Seattle, McGinn worries about the morale and self-esteem of high-paid city executives and consultants.

Maybe if we get him a fiddle now, he’ll be practiced up by the time the city is in flames and ruin.

— Les Iwamasa, Seattle

If we build it, jobs will come

We need to do more than create jobs to revive our economy; We need to create specific kinds of jobs, jobs that rebuild our aged infrastructure, which includes our national road system, changing our existing rail system to a high-speed system, completely rebuilding our electrical grid and repairing our bridges nationwide [“State will get $590 million to speed up rail,” page one, Jan. 28].

Such jobs could conceivably last a long time into the future because by the time the rebuilding is completed, the parts that were repaired first will be due for an update.

We need a nationwide change in our energy industries and we need to retool our thinking about these subjects — so that we don’t just do a repair job or an upgrade and then forget about it until crisis is at hand again. This will create an ongoing management structure that will be in place at all times.

Survival of our society should be enough of an incentive to justify its costs.

— Kevin O’Morrison, Edmonds

The ‘new’ New Deal

High-speed rail across America is our next New Deal. We can rebuild the infrastructure of our country while we redesign our passenger-rail system.

First, this creates an efficient rail system that moves people in excess of 200 mph on an elevated track that doesn’t interfere with current freight trains or automobile traffic.

Second, this creates green jobs and offers an environmentally friendly way to travel using Mag-Lev technology rather than fuel.

Third, this creates many new jobs. Through government contracts, a company like Boeing could build the fuselages for the high-speed rail trains, a company like Microsoft could run the software used on board, American steel companies can build the rails that it will run on, and a company like Starbucks can provide the beverages on board.

This project will require urban planners, engineers, operators, managers, IT professionals, manufacturers, customer service agents, construction workers and others.

Let’s move beyond commuter rail and offer a real alternative to airplane travel in the U.S. It’s time to move America into the 21st century of train travel!

— Greg Font, Shoreline

Plagued by current travel options

I hope the good people of Washington and Oregon are happy about the latest federal dollars meant to improve rail travel in the region.

I lived in Oregon a few years ago and while there I very much enjoyed visiting jewel cities such as Seattle and Portland. But I did not relish the difficulties involved in trying to travel by train and then feeling bad about — too often — resorting to the car and dealing with the traffic and other problems that plague so much of I-5.

Better rail travel experiences might not only benefit Pacific Northwest residents but also those of us in the rest of the country who would love to see your cities, forests and coasts from the clean, well-lit seat of a swiftly moving, on-time train.

— Mary Stanik, Minneapolis

Big can still be small

I work with the faculty — Freeman, Bradshaw and Reusink — at the UW who teach Intro Biology and know that they are determined to maintain the high academic standards that biology is known for, while still creating a learning environment that promotes deep understanding — even with 700 students [“Taking intro to biology? At UW, you’re not alone,” page one, Jan. 27].

It wasn’t easy, but they spent considerable time redesigning the course. They had students sit with their lab section in predetermined classroom locations, teacher assistants (TAs) sat with their students, daily in-class learning activities were created, students worked in small groups with TA supervision to help master concepts and undergraduates were trained as peer TAs to compensate for lost graduate TAs.

By the end of the quarter, the faculty were calling on students by name and students knew each other. They all worked like “Dawgs” and accomplished their goals. Large classes do not have to be anonymous note-taking exercises, but they do require considerable staff support and dedicated faculty who don’t want students to pay for the budget cuts from Olympia.

We can make do for a while, but Olympia needs to realize that these students are Washington’s tomorrow and we need the resources to properly train Washington’s future scientific leaders.

— Mary Pat Wenderoth, principal lecturer, UW Biology Department, Seattle

Problem has been around since ’67

Your article about the crowded UW biology course brought back some unpleasant memories: 1967, 500 people in Intro to Biology, numbered 101 and 102. You had to take both quarters to get the 10 credits. If you only took 101 you got zip — even if you passed it.

First announcement: They graded on a curve, so there will be 50 As, 50 Fs, 100 Bs and Ds, 200 Cs. Fifty of you won’t be back for 102 [they said].

Second announcement: High-school chemistry or physics will be helpful.

Third announcement: College chemistry or physics will be more helpful — remember, it’s our first day of college; We’re freshmen and now we are panicking, but it’s too late to switch to another class.

The course was four hours of lecture — Monday through Thursday; Friday was review lecture, usually by TAs. There were two two-hour labs taught by TAs: nine hours of class per week for five credits.

For two quarters, this was easily the most horrible course at UW, which otherwise was a great experience.

— Carole Allen, Seattle

Will pay more taxes to remedy problem

The recent photo and article about the huge class sizes in some University of Washington departments was an eye-opener! 700 students in one class is obscene, and our students deserve better — and smaller.

It’s well-known and well-documented that students in smaller classes are more successful and they greatly benefit from more teacher and professor interaction.

I don’t expect university lecture halls to offer the same ratio of students-to-teachers as elementary schools, but 700 is absolutely unworkable and should not be tolerated.

Yes, I’d pay more taxes to help remedy this intolerable situation — one that is intolerable for students and faculty.

— Mary Kathryn Myers, Kent

Internet transmission of ballots insecure

Don’t try to fix a system that isn’t broken by permitting the fax and e-mail of voted ballots [“Tweaking law makes overseas voting easier,” Opinion, Jan. 26].

The state Legislature’s bills — House Bill 2483 and Senate Bill 6238 — are supposedly being pursued to comply with a new federal law before the 2010 election cycle. States must establish procedures for military and overseas voters to electronically receive blank absentee ballots. The law does not require or condone the electronic transmittal of voted ballots — A 2004 report to the Pentagon and subsequent reports by top computer scientists say this can’t be done securely.

Current Washington law allows service personnel and citizens overseas to receive ballots by e-mail, so long as the original ballot is returned by mail. The bill under consideration does not provide this safeguard.

To say that voters ultimately measure the risk to their privacy themselves fails to take into account the fundamental insecurity of the Internet. The integrity of the vote and election are undermined if we ignore this fact. In a state that recently experienced a close election, we need to remember there is no reliable way to recount electronically submitted ballots.

Washington state should not implement a system that the Pentagon rejected as fundamentally insecure. Doing so threatens the integrity of the system and dishonors the military personnel whose votes we should be doing everything we can to assure are counted.

Washington state has one of the strongest voting systems in the country for military and overseas voters. Let’s keep it that way.

— Holly Jacobson, executive director VoterAction.org, Seattle

Follow the money

In a letter published on Jan. 28 [“Environmental issues: Salmon runs,” Northwest Voices], Terry Flores, executive director of Northwest RiverPartners, Portland, claims that the premise in “Getting past the dams” is wrong. The premise of the original editorial is that the court-ordered spill program on the middle and upper Columbia and Snake River dams has a measurable impact on salmon survival. In her letter, Flores distorts the opinion piece.

What made me respond is the source of this letter. In the case of Northwest RiverPartners, you need to follow the money. This organization’s board members work for the following groups: Avista Utilities, McMinnville Water and Light, Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities, Inland Power, PNGC Power and Flathead Electric Cooperative [among others].

These are the “RiverPartners.” They are mostly utility companies who continue to stonewall scientific evidence that the dams on the middle and upper Columbia and Snake rivers have a large impact on salmon survival. Fish scientists and courts battles have consistently held that this impact is quite real.

It’s OK to believe that energy generation and utility company profits are more important than salmon survival. It’s not OK to distort the science that clearly shows we have to make choices between these competing factors. Personally, I’ll vote for the salmon.

— Ed Morrison, North Bend

Start thinking about alternative-energy options

Both current wind and solar efforts are considerably behind ocean-motion energy in efficiency [“Green star this year? Think energy efficiency,” Business, Jan. 27]. Wind turbines at best transmit less than 25 percent of the energy that impinges their blades. Solar does not come close to doing that well.

When you ignore the input and concentrate on use efficiency, you are ignoring the reality of where we must go and the necessary action to get there. The downslope of expendable options even now is considerably greater than any conservation efforts or use efficiencies.

We do not need to act like the U.S. as a whole and live on 100 quads per year [an amount of energy equivalent to more than eight billion gallons of gasoline]. If we do not act responsibly with our current challenges, we will end up with less, and no amount of insulation will fill that void.

Oil and natural gas may have different availabilities but you can plan on both lasting about the same amount of time. This means at that point we must have other options in place and neither wind nor solar alone can meet that scale.

We are going to have several efficient options that currently are possible but not available at this time. The time to talk and not act passed long ago.

— Hugh Coleman, Kelso

Stop war, pay for windmills

If instead of paying for endless foreign wars, the citizens of Washington state should somehow magically redirect the amount of their federal taxes being spent on the military for one month — really just one month.

That would be enough money to build enough windmills to replace the Centralia Coal Power Plant — one coal-power plant that emits as much carbon dioxide as all the cars in the state of Washington combined!

Is it really true we cannot afford to do our part to reduce global warming?

— James Adcock, Bellevue

Salmon runs

The premise in “Getting past the dams” is simply wrong [Opinion, Jan. 24]. Salmon and steelhead trout survival is far more complex than mandating spills at dams.

According to the latest NOAA Science Center research, fish survivals since 2006 have varied dramatically even though the spill program has remained static. Nor can NOAA correlate spill with increased adult returns.

As correctly noted, there are many elements affecting fish throughout their complex life-cycle including ocean conditions, which can swamp human actions taken at the dams. These fish live for four to five years, travel thousands of miles, face predators everywhere, face an often hostile ocean environment, and run a gauntlet of nets and hooks to spawn and sustain their genetic legacy.

But, spilling water does not affect survival of fish passing through turbines and doesn’t change water temperatures because it neither warms nor cools water being spilled. Spill does interfere with barging that benefits fish when water temperatures are warm and predation is high and has kept returning adult fish from being able to use the fish ladders.

The Fish Passage Center information you relied on in your editorial does not provide a complete or accurate picture of factors affecting healthy salmon-runs.

— Terry Flores, executive director Northwest RiverPartners, Portland

Double standard exists

In “Conservative activists caught in phone ‘fix’” [News, Jan. 27], we see that James O’Keefe III and three others “were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses to commit a felony.” O’Keefe is the same fruitball who pretended to be a pimp in order to discredit ACORN, an outfit conservatives despise.

If O’Keefe had been a liberal activist, the right wing and most of the mass media — these days, pretty much the same thing — would be screaming for his blood and calling him a terrorist: “He tried to sabotage our democracy!”

We also see that, since the Watergate disgrace, conservatives have not developed a greater respect for the Constitution and the democratic process, but have developed a proud tradition of encouraging a new generation of “plumbers” to game the system.

And, proving the rotten apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, when O’Keefe’s father says his son “wouldn’t break the law. He would know better than that,” we see the proudest tradition of conservatives — when caught doing something wrong: lie, lie, lie.

— Michael Spence, Tukwila

Balance between safety and free speech

I too commend McClure Middle School’s principal for suspending 28 students for bullying a classmate on the Internet [“Zero tolerance for cyberbullying,” Opinion, Jan. 22]. As your editorial states, cases of cyberbullying are on the rise in our state and we must do more to stop cyberbullying in our schools.

Our state’s very first anti-bullying legislation was passed in 2002 and we have continued to work to ensure the law addresses the changing venues of bullying — including the Internet. Several years ago, the Legislature added “cyberbullying” to our state’s definition of bullying and required the state School Directors’ Association to develop a model policy that schools could use to help address this aspect of bullying. We required that this policy include provisions for educating parents about the severity of cyberbullying as well as what options are available for students who are victims of cyberbullying.

This is an incredibly challenging issue to address, as we must find a balance between maintaining safe schools and protecting all Americans’ rights to free speech. These important matters should not be sacrificed for the other. But we will continue to strive to find the balance because all our kids need to feel safe at school to succeed.

— Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Seattle

Washington voters will stand behind tax hike

Editor, The Times:

Oregon voters got it right [“Now is not the time for a tax party,” Opinion, Jan. 29]. They supported raising taxes to prevent $730 million in cuts to health care, education and other core services that would have devastated their state and undermined its long-term economic prosperity.

Washington legislators should take a lesson from Oregon voters and close tax loopholes, raise new revenue and fund the programs that the people of our state so desperately need in these unprecedented tough times.

Oregon voters stood behind lawmakers committed to dealing with this downturn in a responsible and balanced way. Leaders in Washington need to know that our state’s voters will do the same.

Only when Washington pulls out of this economic downturn, with its communities and public structures intact, will it be time to party.

— Rebecca Kavoussi, Seattle

Stop squeezing the needy

How quickly the spin is being applied to Oregon’s vote to increase the state income tax on the wealthy and corporations [“State Democrats see lesson in Oregon vote,” NWThursday, Jan. 28]. The Times’ Politics Northwest column reports that state Democrats are taking the Oregon vote as a sign that Washington voters would be happy to pay more taxes. Huh?

No, the point is that we should require those resting on their millions to contribute to the social good. In order to save vital services — such as Basic Health, education and food for children — Washington, like Oregon, needs a state income tax on millionaires and large corporations. It’s the only sensible solution and it’s long past time to dump the current tax structure that penalizes the poor.

Sens. Rosa Franklin, Jim McDermott and Jeanne Kohl-Welles are sponsoring Senate Bill 6250, which would institute a graduated state income tax and would slice sales and property taxes. I challenge legislators to bring it to a hearing this session. Then they’ll hear the electorate’s real message: Stop squeezing the neediest; tax the wealthy!

— Helen Gilbert, Seattle

Sales tax is not regressive

Some have noted that Washington’s sales tax is regressive: “It eats up a larger slice of poor peoples’ income.” This has not been true for years — not since Washington removed the sales tax from food and prescription medicines.

Low-income people spend most of their income on shelter, food, utilities and — if they are old or have young children — medical costs. Sales taxes are not collected on gasoline or bus fares. The [low-income people] I know buy their clothes in thrift stores. The cost is much lower, about 10 percent of retail in my neighborhood thrift store. So, the sales tax is collected on a much lower base.

Years ago, when Washington collected sales tax on food, the sales tax was regressive. That is no longer true. Former Gov. John Spellman said the sales tax has become a luxury tax. He’s right.

— Dave Rogers, Vashon

Reinstate estate tax

Now that the Senate has returned to work, I want to see our senators reinstate the estate tax. Rather than provide tax breaks for a few wealthy Americans, shouldn’t we make a much-needed investment in America’s future?

Haven’t the very wealthy already been bailed out? In times like these, we should be figuring out how to get America back on its feet, not throwing more money at people who don’t need it. I urge the Senate do the right thing and vote to preserve the estate tax.

— Jeanne McMenemy, Walla Walla

Provide businesses equal opportunity

In The Times’ Jan. 21 op-ed, Todd Achilles seeks to tax and punish those whose talents and efforts produce a substantial estate [“In tough times, it’s irresponsible to allow estate tax to lapse,” Opinion]. He has the arrogance to say a continuation of this tax will only affect a tiny number of the wealthy. Is it responsible to put a special tax on someone because they are few in number? Is that equal justice under the law?

Some risk-takers, entrepreneurs and small-business types succeed enormously and many fail into obscurity. Should America continue to attack those who produce with great success? Doesn’t this only discourage our most talented? America was founded upon the principle of equal opportunity under the law. Your op-ed seems to suggest that special treatment under the law is more appropriate.

Think back on the major companies who have come under attack by our government in the last half century. Most of these were started by someone willing to take risks most others would not take: Standard Oil, IBM, Boeing, AT&T and Microsoft, to name only a few that come to mind.

America seems to be evolving into a country of ever-increasing meddlesomeness in too many aspects of citizenship. To single out the successful few for special taxation is reprehensible. It is not the America of our Founding Fathers.

— Frederic S. Weiss, Mercer Island

100 percent tax on Bill Gates?

I really think Todd Achilles is off the mark in his op-ed piece. It goes to show you that “if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always have the support of Paul.” Carried to its logical conclusion, we could have an estate tax of zero on you and me, and a tax of 100 percent on Bill Gates — allowing no deductions for charitable giving, of course. This might have the same net revenue result to the Treasury, but have a horrible result for the Gates family.

We already have an income-tax situation, where almost 50 percent of the taxpayers pay nothing. In fact, some get an even better deal because the government pays them a “rebate” on taxes they have not paid — the earned-income credit. But they still get to vote, directly and indirectly, on benefits for themselves

Our Founding Fathers would have been shocked by Achilles’ thinking, as they clearly did not contemplate our tax system being used for wealth-redistribution plans. Who will decide what is a “fair” amount of wealth to allow a family to have? A “wealth czar? What standards would be used? Would that be the end of small business so we can all work for the government — or at least become dependent on the government?

— Richard L. Prout, Seattle

Bush’s tax cuts overlooked

I got a chuckle over Thursday’s editorial addressing the president’s State of the Union address [“Obama heard the call: focus on the economy,” Opinion, Jan. 28]. In an otherwise excellent column, you acknowledge that when Obama took office “the nation was awash in red ink” from not paying for two wars, for an expensive prescription drug plan and from a recession that had already cost the Treasury $3 trillion.

This was a direct quote from the speech, but you conveniently left out the fourth element mentioned by the president — namely “two tax cuts.” The cost of the Bush tax cuts over the next 10 years has been estimated at almost $4 trillion — even if they are allowed to expire on schedule.

— James White, Lake Forest Park

‘It’s the economy stupid’

Editor, The Times:

As much as I was brought to tears on occasion — and I did vote for him — I feel President Barack Obama and members of the Senate and House don’t quite understand how justly upset the American people are [“Obama: Jobs, economy must be ‘our No. 1 focus,’.” page one, Jan. 28]. To hear his speech [Wednesday] night was to hear the elder Bush again: “It’s the economy stupid.” The administration didn’t get it before last night, why should we believe they get it now?

Obama and our elected officials don’t need to worry about getting laid off from their jobs and most of them are rich enough that they don’t even need jobs. They have some of the best health insurance in the world and the American people pay for it. Why shouldn’t the people get the same coverage?

They bailed out the banks with American tax money — the banks that got us in this whole mess because of their greed. Why didn’t the government give all that money to the American people as a stimulus for the economy? I’d like to hear the senators and representatives offer to take a pay cut and show solidarity with the Americans who have lost so much — but that will never happen.

I watched the Republicans sit on one side of the chamber and the Democrats on the other while Obama talked about ending partisan politics. But the one thing I didn’t hear Obama say is that Americans need more choices than the two-party system we have now. That is the only way that partisan politics will end in America and the only way that Americans will have a chance at a true democracy and a true freedom of choice.

— Mike Hickey Jr., Seattle

Why weren’t jobs No. 1 priority last year?

The president said in his State of the Union address that jobs is his No. 1 priority in 2010; Why wasn’t it No. 1 in 2009?

He said 14,000 people lost their health care today, but what he didn’t say is that jobs are still being lost. The unemployment shot past the 8 percent point last year, but he assured us that would be the limit if his stimulus package passed. It was passed, but we are now have over 10 percent unemployed!

Why did it take an election in Massachusetts to get the administration’s attention to really make jobs the No. 1 priority? I hope we see results.

— Larry Brickman, Bellevue

Jobs Act’s economics need evaluating

State Rep. Hans Dunshee displays a lack of basic economic knowledge in his Tuesday op-ed [“A call for the Jobs Act is a vote for jobs,” Opinion, Jan. 26].

No one is calling for a reduction of minimum wage, and even if they were they would not be arguing for taking money from average workers, as Dunshee alleged. Wages are paid based on productivity. If a worker’s productivity is below minimum wage, they don’t have a job.

If minimum wage were lowered, those whose productivity was worth $8.55 an hour would still be getting $8.55 an hour, but less-productive workers would now be able to work. Any employer who tried lowering the wages of more-productive workers to the new minimum wage would risk losing them to a competing firm that would pay more for their services.

Productivity is also behind China’s lower wages. U.S. minimum-wage workers are paid nearly 22 times more than China’s minimum-wage workers because they are nearly 22 times more productive. For example, U.S. factory workers have better technology and training at their disposal than Chinese factory workers have. We don’t need to lower our wages to 38 cents an hour in order to compete with China.

While the Jobs Act seems reasonable, in light of Dunshee’s lack of economic expertise, I suggest The Seattle Times find an economist’s evaluation of the Jobs Act. Adequate information, especially concerning how the act will be funded, is necessary before any major decisions about the Jobs Act are made.

— Sylvie Troxel, Seattle

Job creation comes from entrepreneurs

Neither President Obama nor state Rep. Hans Dunshee get it when it comes to how to create jobs. The president proposes tax credits for individuals and curbing student-loan payments. Dunshee proposes a state bond measure of $850 million to repair schools and public buildings and then schools will somehow find extra money to fund energy-efficient work resulting in $2.5 billion worth of projects. Talk about voodoo economics!

The federal and state governments need to realize that job creation comes from the entrepreneurs in the private sector. They need to make sure that our business climate is competitive in the world economy and encourages entrepreneurs to make investments and take the risks necessary, which will result in the creation of jobs. And this doesn’t mean cutting regulations that lower health and safety protection for workers and the environment.

— Bob Dorse, Seattle

First Amendment guarantees it

Your Sunday editorial omits to state some important points to be considered [“Corporations don’t need a louder voice,” Opinion, Jan. 24].

The First Amendment strictly limits the power of government: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” There is nothing in the First Amendment — or anything else in the Constitution — that empowers Congress to abridge the speech of corporations. Indeed, the greatest First Amendment decision of the 20th century, NY Times v. Sullivan, protected a corporation.

Think about it: Books, movies, television and radio are all publications of corporations and other legal associations. If you were to limit the protection of the First Amendment to individuals, it would protect only those who speak on street corners and those who can afford to publish their own books — oh yes, it would also protect individuals who burn flags and dance nude.

The core of the First Amendment is free speech on public issues. The First Amendment preserves our right to hear and read speech on public issues from all sources — without restriction from the government. It is the essence of a free democracy that government has no power to censor speech on public issues.

I was disappointed that four justices thought Congress does have the power to impose prior restraints on the publication of books and movies whose subjects are public issues. The great — and liberal — Warren Court would never have sanctioned such censorship.

— Josh Basson, Seattle

Press not the only opinionator

I read your editorial “Corporations don’t need a louder voice” with amusement. I have read a number of such diatribes in the press since the Supreme Court’s decision.

It seems the press does not want to have any competition when it comes to expressing a point of view. The Constitution allows freedom of speech as well as freedom of the press. It will be no more painful to listen to a corporate point of view than it is to read and listen to the slanted views that I am subjugated to from a “liberal” press and media, which speak with an obvious agenda and bias.

Who granted you the right to be the only opinion expressed when it comes to elections? Could corporate ads of opinion be any worse than the 527 group ads we all endured during the last election? Are your biases and motives any purer than other corporations’?

In essence your editorials and many of your stories are no more than another “political ad.” It is better to hear all points of view than to limit such expression to the press and media.

— Jon Egge, Woodinville

Equal speech rights with equal money

I think that the Supreme Court has gotten so wrapped up in the technicalities of constitutional law that it can no longer effectively judge the true reach of its decisions.

Let me get this straight: If campaign money cannot be restricted because that would restrict “speech,” the court has definitively decided that money equals speech. Since that is now the legal precedent, the court should have likewise ruled that you cannot have equal speech without equal money — i.e., equal protection under the law.

I eagerly await my cashier’s check so that I can have the same “free speech” as the megabuck political donors. Is this a great country, or what?

— Tom Wingard-Phillips, Seattle

It’s a laughing matter

The Supreme Court got it right: Corporations are persons in the legal sense. Personally I like the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court allowing unlimited financing of political campaigns by corporations. That is because there is not enough comedy on television these days.

Nothing is more entertaining than politicians spending money and going after an opponent with all the lies, deceit and smear he/she can muster up. The more the better.

Now, after the court’s decision, corporations can gain a greater portion of the liar’s paradise we call a campaign. The only thing funnier than politicians and corporations “going after each other” during an expensive election-campaign are the people who vote — and yes that includes me.

— Bob McQuade, Kent

UW president has misplaced priorities

So Mark Emmert, president of the University of Washington, thinks that children of illegals deserve to go to the university? [“Undocumented students backed,” NWSaturday, Jan. 23].

What about citizens who have lost their jobs because of outsourcing and manufacturing jobs moved to foreign countries? It is strange that 15 million unemployed workers — more that have run out of benefits — and college graduates unable to find jobs don’t seem to matter to Emmert! College is the answer for misplaced workers.

So Emmert thinks that children of illegals should be given places in college that could be filled with veterans or misplaced workers? Should prisoners take preference over citizens too? The American people do not want to reward lawbreakers with amnesty.

It’s about time our representatives thought about our citizens who are the biggest losers in the Dream Act, which would allow these illegal children to get state tuition to any college of their choice. Citizens get only in-state tuition in the state where they live.

Where, President Emmert, is the fairness in that? Are our educators as out of touch as our state government? Apparently at University of Washington it’s true.

— Kathleen E Bukoskey, Everett

Give space at UW to U.S. citizens

Who does this University of Washington president think he is? He sits there with his outrageous salary plus all the perks and we have thousands of our own state’s young legal citizens who would love to get to go to the UW. They can’t because this economy will not permit it to happen. People are broke!

If he has so much compassion about higher learning, why doesn’t he spend his own money to educate the illegal immigrant students and find another way to help our own children?

If the legislation he proposes is passed into law, we will be sending our nation into a tailspin and the economy would suffer more than you know.

Someone better put the brakes on this man and others like him. We don’t need to give away the farm after the horses already left the stable.

— Barbara Flinchbaugh, Auburn

Benefits for Seattle, not Eastside

Editor, The Times:

Bellevue City Councilman Kevin Wallace’s proposed Vision Line “may provide light-rail access to Eastside” [Opinion, Jan. 25]. Unfortunately the Vision Line doesn’t provide Eastside residents with access to light rail. Seattle residents will be able to ride light rail to Bellevue and beyond. The only access for most Eastside residents will be the relatively small park-and-ride lot in the Wilburton area along Interstate 405.

The preferred Sound Transit proposal at least includes the South Bellevue Park-and-Ride, which they plan to increase to about 1,500 parking spaces. Even that increased capacity is of dubious value because of the problem getting to the park-and-ride in the morning and back to Interstate 90 in the afternoon.

The expectation that light rail will attract large numbers of potential riders to the Bellevue-Redmond area is belied by Seattle Central Link. Sound Transit has recently recognized the only thing light rail “attracts” is park-and-ride lots — with ridership about half of projected levels.

The reality is that none of the proposed routes will come close to providing access to the vast majority of cross-lake commuters. Sound Transit projections of 40,000 to 45,000 riders by 2030 are farcical in view of the limited cross-bridge capacity and lack of access.

Sound Transit confiscation of the bridge center-section for light rail will only result in future gridlock on the bridge’s outer sections for the vast majority of cross-lake residents.

Bellevue residents — 41st and 48th legislative districts — voted against the East Link proposal in 2008 for good reason. The $4 billion spent on East Link will do absolutely nothing for congestion along I-405 and I-90. The idea that the Bellevue City Council along with the Eastside legislators would acquiesce to any East Link proposal is practically criminal.

— Bill Hirt, Bellevue

Should go closer to downtown Bellevue

The Vision Line light-rail proposal for Bellevue is an I-405 alignment with, according to Kevin Wallace, a 10-minute walk to anywhere in downtown Bellevue.

I do not think many people could walk in 10 minutes — or for that matter would walk — from Bellevue Square with two shopping bags, in the rain, to I-405 to catch the light rail. The light-rail alignment to Bellevue should go through the Central Business District (CBD) and provide easy access to work, homes and shopping in the CBD.

To get the greatest value from the light-rail investment, Bellevue should select a route in the CBD based upon maximizing the number of people who will use it. Today, Bellevue residents are still focused on the car for all their transportation needs.

But 10 years from now, as light rail becomes available, I predict we will see that focus will have shifted to using more rapid mass transit because our roads can no longer accommodate all those cars with our predicted increase in population density.

— Paul R. Perkins, Bellevue

Don’t sugarcoat the truth

Manoucheka Celeste’s indictment of media coverage of the Haitian earthquake [“Disturbing media images of Haiti reinforce stereotypes,” Opinion, Jan. 27] demonstrates why those who can do — and those who cannot — teach.

Self-identified as a media scholar, her critique of how her nation has been depicted post-quake brings into question the value of any work she might do in her UW doctoral program.

The images we’ve seen are certainly horrible — but they are accurate. To suggest that the media somehow sugarcoat the disaster by not showing what is happening in Haiti disqualifies Celeste from claiming the title of journalist. With her arguments, she descends into the role of a flack.

The job of a reporter is to present reality, not spin. Accurately telling a story — even a distasteful one — is not part of some great social experiment. It is a service to a democratic society.

Even before the quake, Haiti was a wretched place that the world ignored — I know. I spent time there in the early 1980s as a reporter. That history cannot be changed by simple wishful thinking.

Repairing the damage — and hopefully creating a better Haiti — will not be advanced by denying the terrible, heartbreaking reality of the country today.

— Steve Krueger, retired journalist, Auburn

Continue front-page coverage

Up until last week, I was very proud of the way The Seattle Times had images and articles about the Haitian quake front and center on the cover. That pride was replaced by sadness and anger Thursday morning when I found “Earthquake in Haiti” bottom right on the page [page one, Jan. 21].

Replacing its former position were “Whistler up for auction” and “Is this how you picture January?” Now the Haitian earthquake coverage is reduced to a two-liner at the bottom right of the page telling you to go to A4. Only nine days and already the horrific events in Haiti are fading from the headlines; The Times isn’t excluding itself from this shameful “news cycle.”

As I stated before, I was saddened and angered. This issue of the newspaper made a clear statement that the going-ons of ski resorts and record high temperatures are of more importance than mass suffering and loss of human life.

These people do not get to go on with their lives as easily as the shifting of headlines. I am asking The Times to not forget them so quickly.

— Allena Bassett, Kirkland

Can’t teach a student who doesn’t want to learn

The Jan. 27 article by Lynne K. Varner again indicated consideration for evaluation of teachers and that student-performance data will be used [“A showdown’s coming at the education-reform corral,” Opinion]. Certainly the performance of students should be used in evaluating the effectiveness of schools, but should teachers’ performance be used as well?

Are teachers the only variable in the performance of students? Hardly. The best teacher in the country can’t teach a student who simply doesn’t want to learn — so student motivation is critical. Family support and encouragement to learn are similarly crucial pieces in performance.

The school environment and ethos are extremely important as well. Does the school expect students to learn? Do they have an environment conducive to learning? Does the school value “social adjustment” more than rigorous learning? Does the school support teachers or simply kowtow to loud parents? All of these affect student performance and should be given strong consideration in developing any “solution” to the education problem.

By the way, competition isn’t always a bad thing and properly authorized and monitored charter schools should be given serious consideration.

— Howard Mount, Poulsbo

An open letter to Obama

Editor, The Times:

Wednesday, Mr. President, you will be giving your first official State of the Union address as president of these United States [“In State of Union, Obama has work cut out for him,” page one, Jan. 24]. Before being called the State of the Union address, this speech was called “the president’s annual message to Congress” and I think you should return it to such.

Please, stand up on Wednesday night and tell the American people that they are welcomed to listen but the message you have is not for them — but for the Congress. Turn to that joint body and tell them this is our last good chance — with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on campaign financing, we may not get another.

Tell them that we must pass, via budget reconciliation, a health-care bill that will take effect in mere months, not years. The American people must feel the change swiftly.

The time for bipartisanship is over. The Republican Party has demonstrated again and again that they will not work toward any common good that will be perceived as a “win” by the Democratic Party. We attempted bipartisanship and since have heard nothing but complaints.

We need the Republican Party for one thing, though: as a model of efficiency. We Democrats need to get in line and stop the infighting. We need to realize that getting some of what we need is better than getting none of what we want.

Please, Mr. President, I think you are our last best chance, and I’m afraid this is your last best chance.

— Barbara G. Workman, Atascadero, Calif.