Author: The Seattle Times: Northwest Voices

State needs to be efficient before it can raise more taxes

In his column, “Taking that big first step,” [NWWednesday, April 20], Danny Westneat cites Joe Decuir’s idea of economic patriotism and going first, initiating contribution of more in taxes.

I consider myself patriotic, and I pose this question: How about government going first, by living within its means and proving it is at peak efficiency through adopting performance audits of government agencies?

We could even start with a pilot project right here, at home with our very own state government. Let’s start by implementing all of State Auditor Brian Sonntag’s 602 audit recommendations, since he claims that they will save 10 percent across the board.

Should Sonntag be right, with a $31 billion budget, we could have saved $3.1 billion in the last biennium. That might have kept the Democrat-controlled Legislature out of a special session and lawmakers from raising new taxes, let alone their 20 percent increase in the business and occupation tax on service industry businesses from 1.5 to 1.8 percent.

Smart choices and sacrifice would be truly patriotic. Then once we are at peak efficiency and we still need more revenue, we can talk.

— Justin Kawabori, Redmond

Nuclear power is not ‘green’

The Special to The Times op-ed “Next-generation nukes for a clean-energy future” [Opinion, April 20] was completely one-sided. Nuclear power is not “green.”

The mining and enriching of nuclear fuel is highly energy-intensive and when this cost is factored in, nuclear power produces a carbon equivalent approaching that of natural gas.

Uranium mining in Canada has left behind 200 million tons of radioactive tailings, fine as flour, which blow in the wind and flow downstream. Typically 5 percent of energy production from a nuclear plant is expended containing and cooling nuclear reactions.

A new reactor typically costs $4 billion and cost overruns are common. It has taken from eight to 24 years to complete nuclear power plants in the United States. The same billions spent to build solar arrays, windmills, microbial fermenters, tidal and wave farms, as well as many other alternative technologies could yield results more quickly and supply all the power we need.

Each nuclear power plant and storage site is an obvious terrorist target. If the United States builds hundreds of nuclear plants, other countries would build thousands. Perfect security is impossible to achieve.

The technology involved in building nuclear power plants is a steppingstone to the technology for building nuclear weapons. If the United States had not encouraged Iran to build nuclear power plants in the 1950s, perhaps Iran would not be building nuclear weapons now. Promoting nuclear energy as a worldwide solution to energy needs is like giving children loaded guns to play with.

Each nuclear power plant is bankrupt from the day it is built —the energy produced over its 40-year life can never cover the cost of storing nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years.

— James Robert Deal, Lynnwood

What do we have to show after 40 years?

Editor, The Times:

On April 22, 1970, I participated in Earth Day. The rally on the UW campus was exhilarating —especially for those of us who, for a few years, had been agitating for more care of our environments.

Looking back, we see that much of what we were doing then has become institutionalized, in the hands of large conservation organizations (we belong to many of them) and their effectiveness is a challenge to government and industry alike. But what is missing is the sense of personal involvement and this is felt keenly.

A year or two earlier, I walked into the University District office of the Sierra Club and asked where to start. Brock Evans, then the local representative, told me that I should just pick something. I started working on the confirmation hearings of Walter Hickle, former governor of Alaska and secretary of the interior. That led to subsequent involvement in the North Cascades National Park and Alpine Lakes Wilderness, then to working for the Washington Environmental Council to rationalize the number and location of nuclear power plants in the Pacific Northwest. There were many other issues, but little or no personal effort as we wrote checks and e-mail messages instead of letters and testimony.

Today, despite our successes, we confront a global ecosystem that is badly destabilized, a Puget Sound ecosystem where whales feast on plastics, clothing, rope and other junk, a world with fewer amphibians, songbirds and many species whose habitat is diminishing rapidly or has already evaporated while our own species grows exponentially. I wonder what we would call failure if this is the measure of our success.

Through it all I feel a personal sense of disengagement and loss and I do not know what I can do to ease it. I want to start all over again.

— Earl J. Bell, UW Professor Emeritus, Seattle

Time to reflect on what we’ve done to the planet

When the first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, the air was festive —and cleaner, too. The population of 3.7 billion has nearly doubled since and terms virtually unknown then now define our age: tipping points, peak oil and climate change.

Fortunately, something else has grown in these four decades: Tremendous knowledge not only of how ecosystems have deteriorated worldwide, but also of their tremendous restorative capacities on which humans could build.

Symbols and celebrations such as the 20th anniversary of Earth Day are times to reflect and reconnect. What would happen if the entire week of April 18-24 was designated as “Earth Days,” as Community Educational Television — KCET in California — has done, full with activities that acknowledge the vital and ethical connections we all have with Earth.

Everyone could encourage Earth Day-related activities in places of learning throughout our community —classrooms and homes, as well as outdoors. The synergies and hope that emerge could in turn move us closer to living as if every day were Earth Day.

— James Loucky, Bellingham

Americans’ actions ironic twist to Earth Day founding

Earth Day, which set off alarm bells in 1970, has now morphed from a wake-up call into a much ballyhooed occasion to go out and pick up litter. As if our lovely, little blue dot in the universe notices.

What Earth does notice is its atmosphere and oceans warming as we continue burning precious fossil fuels. Polar and glacial ice melts, oceans expand, threatening coastlines and small island countries. Deserts expand, too —water shortages already threaten millions of people.

Although Americans started Earth Day, we have strayed farthest from its original message. Per capita, we are still the biggest contributors to the planet’s climate fever, but we have ignored warnings from the world’s scientists and abdicated our leadership responsibilities.

If your mother were sick, wouldn’t you want to help her get well? We must convince Congress to stop polluting energy use and convert to renewable energy by increasing the price of carbon. Most straightforward is taxing the 2,000 coal-, oil- and gas-producing and -importing companies, and distributing this revenue to everyone to cover higher energy prices.

Sen. Maria Cantwell’s Clear Act comes closest to this model. Simpler still is the Carbon Fee and Dividend Act proposed by the Citizens Climate Lobby.

— Andrea Faste, Seattle

Whales eating sweatpants and duct tape: a wake-up call

The story “Garbage in stomach of dead whale” [NWTuesday, April 20] should be a wake-up call for people.

Sadly, this is about the thousandth wake-up call that we need to stop throwing our junk into anywhere except the trash can. Imagine how much better it would be if you went to a beach and it was not covered in beer bottles and plastic bags. It would be so much better if we were able to keep our city and eventually our whole country clean.

Sorrowfully, we are far from this goal. In fact, we are so far away from it that whales are eating sweatpants and duct tape. If we could manage to clean up our city’s streets and beaches, it would not only be a better prettier place to live, but it would save the lives of the many animal species that live around Seattle.

— Cole Thomas, Seattle

Time to revive plastic bag fee

The American Chemistry Council, Exxon and other plastic manufacturers are the ones who spent $1.5 million dollars last summer defeating the measure on the Seattle ballot to charge a fee for plastic bags at the grocery store.

Facing more such bans, the plastic industry is now launching a program encouraging us to recycle our plastic bags. While recycling is a good thing, it does not solve the problem.

We use more than 350 million plastic bags a year in Seattle alone. Around the country, charging a fee has been proven to reduce the use of plastic bags by 85 percent or more almost overnight. It is those same plastic bags that end up on our streets, in our waterways and in whales’ stomachs, despite recycling efforts.

It makes me angry that we think our plastic bags are more important than the health of the ocean and marine life. I urge the City Council and city governments everywhere in Washington to follow the lead of Edmonds and take this issue up again.

— Sally Wolf, Seattle

For clean-energy future, try next-generation nukes

No commercial fast reactors currently operating in the United States

The opinion “Next-generation nukes for a clean-energy future” [Opinion, April 20] makes a misleading claim about the efficacy of recycling spent nuclear fuel, stating recycling as practiced in Japan, France and Britain “reuse up to 95 percent of spent uranium.”

Recycling as presently practiced only increases the energy obtained from the original uranium fuel by about 25 percent. Only a different kind of reactor, a “fast” reactor, could significantly exploit the dominant isotope of uranium present in reactor fuel. No commercial fast reactors are in operation in the United States, Britain or Japan; France is phasing out its only fast reactor. The country has also accumulated about 50 tons of excess plutonium from its recycling activities, as its reactors have been unable to use all of the plutonium recovered by recycling. Britain has decided to phase out recycling.

More research and development of fast reactors must be carried out if recycling is to be a practical and significant contributor to solving our need for reduced carbon-emission energy.

The story also claims that small-scale reactors dramatically reduce the amount of waste that needs to be treated or stored. The amount of fission product waste produced per unit energy does not depend on the size of the reactor.

— Robert Vandenbosch, Seattle

Convert Hanford site into power plant fueled by nuclear waste

The Seattle Times special suggests revisiting the nuclear-energy issue considering the flawless safety record since 1979. This record is due to extremely rigorous design and operation standards that were not in place for early reactors.

The story failed to mention the appalling record of coal-fired power plants. Headlines about coal accidents fail to address the thousands of people who die every year from pollution produced by mining and burning coal. The book “Storms of My Grandchildren” by James Hansen contrasts the 200,000-person rally against nuclear energy with the lack of rallies about the dangers of coal energy.

The capability of fourth-generation reactors to consume 95 percent of spent nuclear fuel was mentioned. Otherwise known as fast-neutron reactors, they can also consume material from nuclear weapons, thereby reducing the risk of a nuclear holocaust.

In the 1970s and ’80 s, the blind optimism about nuclear energy was replaced by blind opposition. It is time to replace both with realistic appraisal. Rather than challenging shutdown of Yucca Mountain, our state should consider converting the mothballed Fast Flux Test Facility at the Hanford site to a power plant fueled by nuclear waste stored there.

— Bob Jeffers-Schroder, Seattle

Nuclear energy neither safe nor green

The truth is that nuclear energy is neither safe nor “green.” The mining of uranium emits carbon dioxide as well as many other pollutants.

The cost of producing nuclear energy is so prohibitive, it cannot be done without government subsidies. This means more of our taxes would be going to private industry and more “socialism for the rich.” Also, no insurance company will touch nuclear energy, which led to the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, with more taxpayer money going to the industry if there is an accident.

There is also the issue of terrorists getting ahold of plutonium to produce a dirty bomb, and yet more government money for security. In addition to that, after 60 years of peaceful nuclear energy, they still have not figured out what to do with all the nuclear waste that must be sequestered for hundreds of thousands of years.

— Chris Anderson, Seattle

Attack on mayor unwarranted

This is a response to “Mayor’s veto may scuttle measure” [page one, April 20].

When I read about City Councilmember Tim Burgess’ aggressive-panhandling measure, I immediately sent messages protesting the measure to him and City Council President Richard Conlin.

I pointed out that I am a frequent downtown visitor. I shop, visit the art museum, library and Benaroya Hall; eat, attend meetings, visit friends day and night and have not been aggressively panhandled by anyone. I am a5-foot-2 senior citizen with no training in the martial arts.

The attack on Mayor Mike McGinn [“Missteps are mounting for Mayor Mike McGinn,” editorial, Opinion, April 21] was unwarranted, as were comments about City Councilmember Bruce Harrell.

— Jan O’Connor, Seattle

End, not criminalize homelessness

Mayor Mike McGinn is not listening? When Tim Burgess’ aggressive-panhandling bill came up for a vote last week, public comment at the City Council meeting was 2-to-1 against it, according to every account I have heard.

Additionally, a laundry list of human-rights and civil-liberties organizations had come out against the bill, which likely is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

Aggressive panhandling is already a criminal offense in Seattle. This bill would only add a civil penalty on top of that, which means cops have to meet a far lower burden of proof and suspects do not have the right to an attorney.

Where does that leave that aggressive panhandler? I think it is safe to assume most do not have an extra $50 lying around to cover the fine. If anything, this encourages even more aggressive panhandling.

Let’s try to solve homelessness instead of criminalizing it.

— Garrett McCulloch, Seattle

No hero to the people, mighty morphin’ taxes

This is a response to “Gates Sr. pushes for state income tax on wealthy” [page one, April 21].

How many times do we need to see a new tax that was originally touted as “just on the wealthy” morph into something very different?

Originally, the U.S. income tax was sold as a tax that only the top 1 percent would ever have to pay. Now look where we are at: When the value added tax was first introduced in Europe, most rates were below 10 percent. Now most rates have more than doubled to nearly 20 percent of purchases.

While the vast majority of us would be nowhere near the tax level now, given time, inflation and modifications to the law by politicians, our children could end up with another claim on their incomes. The last thing we need is another foot in the door for government forcibly spending more of the people’s money.

— Chris Waldorf, Seattle

More taxes would give legislatures pocket to pick to cover ballooned budgets

It was comforting to note that someone still has money to give away. We all know that it is easy to give money away to the IRS just by writing a check to the U.S. Treasury.

Pure and simple, this is another attempt to open the door for a long-term opportunity to invoke an income tax, supplementing our sales tax. Two ways, then, to increase our taxes will be a real boon for our state legislators to “pick and choose” funding of ballooned budgets.

If we approve an income tax, rest assured, we will wind up with both and the floodgates to spending will be open.

— Robert J. Monks, Poulsbo

Substitute food stamps for leaner school lunches

Editor, The Times:

I read the April 16 editorial “Funding the end of mystery meat” [Opinion] with irony and anger as I prepared my son’s school lunch —a peanut butter sandwich and chips from an economy-size bag.

It is amazing the folks who promote a nanny state are concerned about this issue. My sons are not obese, as I cannot afford to buy them a hot lunch at school containing those devious fatty foods such as hot dogs and fried chicken.

Of more concern is the tacit admission that the food-stamp program obviously does not work. Otherwise, these children would be eating nutritious meals, both in the morning and evening.

Why don’t we do away with the food-stamp programs and use those savings for leaner school meals?

— Chris Gormley, Everett

For school lunches, $1 billion not a big bite on federal budget

The Seattle Times rightly endorsed investing more to improve the nutritional quality of school meals.

We, the Children’s Alliance, agree that Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s bill to reauthorize child-nutrition programs calls for too small of an investment. We do not agree that the Obama administration has asked for too much by requesting $1 billion a year in new funding.

Fundamental changes are needed to improve both nutrition in and access to essential child-nutrition programs. About 42 percent of children in our state signed up for free or reduced-price meals this past fall. Hunger is on the rise in tandem with childhood obesity. Food choices and opportunities for physical activity are severely limited in many low-income communities.

Increasing participation in the federal nutrition programs is one of the healthy eating and physical activity strategies recommended in the Institute of Medicine’s report Local Government Actions to Prevent Childhood Obesity. Numerous national research studies applaud the role that nutrition programs play in improving school children’s’ diets.

It is vital that we surround all of our kids with nutritious food where they live, learn and play. Let’s not shortchange a key investment that would get us closer to reaching that goal.

— Linda Stone, senior food policy coordinator, Children’s Alliance, Seattle

Spend now on lunch bill, save later on health-care bills

The Times falls short of calling for an additional $1 billion per year for 10 years, citing concerns about other budget pressures facing Congress.

Washington’s Child Nutrition Reauthorization Coalition asks that Congress fully fund the additional $1 billion per year being requested by President Barack Obama, Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and countless child-hunger and nutrition advocates around the country.

We, Washington’s Child Nutrition Reauthorization Coalition and Northwest Harvest, strongly suggest that without this investment now, the United States will pay a far greater price down the road.

In addition to spending nearly $150 billion annually in obesity-related medical costs in the country, the current child-obesity epidemic seriously threatens our national security. Three out of four 18-to-24-year-olds today are unfit to serve in our military primarily because of obesity or a lack of high school diploma — both outcomes closely tied to child nutrition.

Mission Readiness, a coalition of retired generals, admirals and civilian military leaders recently released the report “Too Fat To Serve,” in which they argue for strong child-nutrition legislation that removes junk food from schools, improves nutritional standards for meals served and increases access to these programs that are known to reduce and prevent child obesity.

Our coalition echoes this call and asks Washington’s federal lawmakers to make it a priority to fight child hunger and obesity with an increased investment of $1 billion per year.

— Josh Fogt, public policy manager, Northwest Harvest, Seattle

Visitation rights a big step for gay-rights movement

This is a response to “Obama to hospitals: open up on visits for gays” [page one, April 16].

I would simply like to say that I believe this is a big step forward for the gay-rights movement.

Though some people feel President Barack Obama is not doing enough or is not moving fast enough in the area of gay rights, I think that in some cases you have to take things one step at a time. Obama is doing all that he can under the circumstances to make sure that each step is as big as possible.

— Kate Holmes, Seattle

Don’t just doodle over arts education

This is a response to “Arts education a good investment” [Opinion, April 19].

As a volunteer at the Bellevue Arts Museum, I get to work with teens in the Teen Docent Program and see firsthand how art could make a difference in the lives of our young people.

Not only do they learn about art and the technique of making art, but they learn how to talk about the many subjects art addresses, from the environment, wars, politics, travel, different cultures and the world in general. They learn through artist eyes to look more closely at these subjects and what they mean.

Art teaches them to be interested in and speak to subjects outside of their own worlds.

— Barbara Vynne, Bellevue

Away with the math coaching

In the op-ed “Seattle school district, teachers should embrace bold ideas” [April 17], the authors claim research shows that highly effective teaching includes “a focus on different cultural learning styles.” They also advocate “expanded mentoring and coaching programs.”

In education circles, we constantly hear “research shows ….” Oftentimes, such statements are essentially false. I can cite considerable research that shows that the “learning-styles” approach to education is bunk.

What research supports the authors’ claims?

We should eliminate the math-coaching positions we already have. Seattle school district math coaches are used to promote “inquiry-based instruction,” which has been an utter failure in our schools for the last 15 years or so.

I do not want to be “coached” to teach ineffectively. If the coaches are such wonderful teachers, put them back in the classroom. Putting more resources into such useless undertakings makes no sense at all.

— Ted Nutting, Seattle

Build schools, not jails

Strained finances at our schools across state, while we spend millions of dollars on correctional facilities makes me question our priorities. In the United States, we put a higher percentage of our population in jail than any other civilized country. It is long past time that we find another, smarter alternative.

If we do not fund the education of our children, we will need more prisons in the future. A good education is a good way to reduce crime.

Students who graduate with the knowledge and skills to get good jobs are far less likely to commit crimes. Schools need money to give that good education.

It is appalling to see all the news regarding the decline of our educational system and the lack of funds in our schools. If we do not invest in our kids’ futures now, we will pay for it later. We will see far more of an impact on crime if we use our tax dollars on education and other necessary services than we will by any amount spent building more prisons and incarcerating more people.

— Sam Donaghe, Steilacoom

Bank and bust?

I must take issue with the April 18 column, “Avoiding financial meltdown” [Opinion], which argued that insolvent banks must be rescued with tax money to prevent their insolvency from spreading to other banks.

The column compared allowing a bank to fail with allowing a fire in a building to burn itself out and possibly spread to other adjacent buildings. This analogy, however valid it may appear, is faulty. The spread of a fire from one building to another would normally not be the fault of the owner of the other building — not so with one bank failure spreading to another bank.

A bank that maintains 100 percent reserves against demand deposits and avoids borrowing short and lending long should not be brought down during any financial panic. The failure of one bank would touch off other bank failures only if those other banks have also mismanaged their depositors’ money.

This would imply banks are undermining economic prosperity and should be taken over by their depositors.

The column’s bailout prescription for failed banks, far from being a long-term corrective measure, would keep them in a special privileged class of businesses that are shielded from market discipline, continuing to promote unsound practices.

— Mark Warner, Bellevue

Nothing wrong about having experience

The Harvard-Yale Alumni Club, better known as the Supreme Court of the United States, is faced with a dilemma: What sort of person should replace Judge John Paul Stevens when he retires? [“Stevens says he’ll decide soon on retiring,” News, April 4.]

The religious makeup of the club after Stevens leaves will be eight Catholics and two Jews. Because of this, it is unlikely that either a Jew or a Catholic will be considered. That is unfortunate because religion should never be a factor in choosing a judge.

The most important criterion should be who has the broadest experience in the practice of law, but I doubt that quality will even be considered. Factors such as religion, which law school someone attended, vacancies in lower federal courts and politics will matter far more.

If one uses logic to figure out the next appointment, then one would figure that the nod would go to a Protestant, lower-circuit federal judge.

I hope that does not happen.

Why not select a lawyer from a private practice, who has actually worked for a living and not lived off the government? Why not appoint someone who lives west of the Appalachian Mountains, who worships the laws of the United States, attended a public law school, tried and won cases in the U.S. Supreme Court?

In short, why not nominate a person with experience? I know it would be novel, but maybe — just maybe — such a person would become a great judge. There is nothing wrong about having experience.

— Harry Foster, Freeland

Mindset on profit margins unhealthy for the economy

We should have known that ignorance and stupidity did not create the mortgage debacle that brought down the nation’s economy [“SEC says Goldman Sachs misled investors,” page one, April 17].

The ethical void that could have led Paulson & Co. to profit by betting against homebuyer is the same one that could propel investors to buy Goldman Sachs now. Who cares if the company is corrupt? There’s money to be made. If that is all we, the public, care about — making money — then a corrupt economy is what we deserve.

Until we begin basing investment decisions not only on companies’ profit potential, but on their honor and contributions to humanity as well, we will not experience a true recovery.

— Edie Lau, Poulsbo

‘Mandatory overtime’ not appealing as it sounds

Editor, The Times:

Yes, garbage workers are lucky to have jobs in these tough economic times. But The Times seems a little tone-deaf with such statements as “incomes are even burnished by mandatory overtime” [“Quit talking trash; sign a fair contract,” Opinion, April 15].

You try working “mandatory overtime” at a physically demanding job and see if you would rather have that time to be with your families or just to live your life instead of having that extra money.

Regarding your “puzzlement” at the garbage haulers trying to look after their benefits and look to their futures when their bodies will be worn out from doing these physically demanding jobs: How about aiming some of your potshots at companies that use these tough economic times to bust unions and squeeze hardworking people in order to make a little more profit?

Just a thought.

— Kirk and Mary Claire Duncan, Seattle

Empty your wallets, executives

Why should workers in the fifth-most-dangerous job in the United States give concessions (recession or not) to a company that made more than $11 billion dollars last year?

Why is it OK for the company to eliminate retiree health care, refuse to match the benefits other sanitation companies provide, force employees to work 12-hour days and harass them when they get injured?

Why does The Times insist on saying the only issues are over-improvements in benefits? Not only is this erroneous, but if true, it could hardly be a crime.

I am tired of hearing that employees should surrender their health and income to huge corporations that pay big CEO salaries and fat shareholder dividends from the labor of those workers. Every wage and benefit increase won by rank-and-file workers helps others —even in other industries. The workers raise the bar of prevailing wages. U.S. employees have been taking a hit for years. It is time for the fat cats to pay for a change.

— Megan Cornish, Seattle

When companies make bank, where do workers come in?

I object to the “Quit talking trash; sign a fair contract” editorial, which indicates that in a time of economic uncertainty, workers with “good-paying jobs and steady employment” are obligated to give up those advantages in solidarity with the underpaid and unemployed.

No, that is not how it works. Over and over again, we have seen workers give back for the sake of the company. But when those companies post record profits, there is no corresponding giveback to the workers.

The way workers such as the garbage haulers — who are putting up a great fight against the mega-rich Waste Management corporation — could help their less fortunate fellows is to stand up to preserve income and safety standards.

The so-called “jobless recovery” we are experiencing simply means that corporations have rescued their profits by driving down wages and conditions. Talk about trash.

— Helen Gilbert, Seattle

Comparing taxes to GDP misleading

Using the measure of taxes as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) is certainly misleading [“Parsing the tea-party logic,” Danny Westneat column, NWSunday, April 18]. Could you honestly say you believe the federal government has been shrinking?

What has been happening is that the GDP has so greatly expanded over the past 50 years —partly due to periods of limited taxes —that even if taxes kept pace with growth, they would be greatly expanding also.

Did you know that the original tea party was fought over tea that would have been less expensive than what the colonists were then currently drinking? Why would they dump tea into Boston Harbor when it was destined to cost them less? The answer is principles.

Beyond that, the tea- party movement is energized by three things:

1. It witnessed the bare exercise of government power to get an ill-conceived and criminally executed health-care bill passed in opposition to the desires of the people.

2. It is concerned not just for its future, but that of the next generation or two that will face mountains of federal debt created by unnecessary government entitlement programs.

3. It is concerned about the federal government becoming too powerful and far-reaching. No sane person could deny this trend, so unless you are just a mindless drone, trusting the government to make your every decision, you should get government back in its place.

— William Schaefer, Renton

Tea-party members get the picture

The Times’ Danny Westneat recently visited a tea party and observed the folk “didn’t fit the crudest media stereotypes.” The people were “friendly” —finally an honest statement from the media, if condescending.

In his column, Westneat wrote he wondered if the tea-party folks were on this planet. No, the tea-party folks are in the United States, as confirmed by the election of Scott Brown to the Senate from blue Massachusetts. The tea-party principles elected the senator and elitists are in depraved denial.

Further, Westneat tried to educate the folks on “currently ‘low taxes.’.” Not mentioned were the recent, historically large Washington gas-tax increase, plans the Democrats have to rescind former President George Bush’s tax cuts, a proposed federal sales tax and much more.

The elites have bankrupted California and the rest of the nation is not far behind. The American people, via the tea party and like-minded people, will throw off the tyranny of the elites and their fanciful vision for the planet.

— Don Wilbur, University Place

Quit being so cold, USA

Seeing the stories of all the people stranded at U.S. airports because of the volcano eruption and ash cloud in Europe [“Volcano has Europe at standstill,” page one, April 16] got me to thinking about Sept. 11, 2001, when the U.S. shut down its airspace.

Canadians opened up their homes, churches and community centers to house stranded Americans. Some even drove those stranded thousands of miles to get home. Obviously, we cannot drive people home to Europe, but what about the others? Where are the communities and people who could open up their homes and community centers to the travelers, help them get a hot shower and hot meal?

Where is the Red Cross? This a natural disaster.? The Red Cross could provide hotel vouchers or some other kind of assistance. I have seen a few stories of Americans who have opened their homes, but more needs to be done. We need to show the world that we care about them. We need to show ourselves as well. We need to stand up and lend a helping hand.

— Lori Gunby, Seattle

Nature’s pollutant

Name a polluting factory anywhere in the world that could have a greater impact on worldwide weather and ecology than the latest Icelandic volcano eruption.

When was the last time worldwide travel was interrupted by anything man-made? The next time politicians promote cap-and-trade to benefit mankind, tell them to put a cork in it first — the volcano, that is.

— Fred Strine, North Bend

Can’t afford to wait on immigrants

This is a response to “We can’t afford to wait on immigration reform” [Opinion, April 15].

Sure, special-interest groups want open borders that benefit them. All amnesty would do is encourage more people — millions — to come here knowing if they waited long enough, they too would automatically become citizens.

Group leaders say if granted amnesty, the offenders would go back home and apply for visas, pay back taxes and learn English. That will never happen; it is only a ploy to gain our trust.

How could you trust a person who sneaks into our country, takes services that are meant for the elderly, ill and handicapped and gets fraudulent documents to suddenly be honest?

These special-interest groups should put their time and money in protesting the quality of life in Mexico so its citizens would not have to come here and split up their families. They claim that if millions of illegals would returned to Mexico, it would bring America to its knees. I say go home and teach us all a lesson.

— Kathleen Bukoskey, Everett

Once legal, would undocumented immigrants continue current jobs?

Whenever I hear the argument that illegal immigrants should be given amnesty because they work the jobs that U.S. citizens refuse to do and that without them, the jobs would not get done, I shake my head.

When you give amnesty to illegal immigrants they are no longer illegal. Because they are no longer illegal, they will not do the work they did when they were illegals. So guess what? More illegal workers would cross our borders to do the work the former illegals would no longer do.

Could only simpletons like me see this?

— Bob McQuade, Kent

Wanted: citizenship for my husband

I am a U.S. citizen married to a man who entered this country 13 years ago to support his younger siblings after his father died.

My husband loves this country as well as the employers and friends he has made here. He has a diligent work ethic and a consistently positive attitude. He paid his taxes and rent, and bought groceries, cars and material goods here.

We have spent more than $10,000 on credit cards to pay for him to become a legal, permanent resident. The application was denied and work permit terminated because he committed a crime five years ago.

We have three children between us. He is the only father figure my daughter has in her life. He takes care of our toddler and has dinner ready when I get home from work. His firstborn son from a previous relationship is with us every weekend.

My husband is a dedicated father and spouse. We need immigration reform that allows families to stay together.

— Kezia Willingham. Seattle

Unless policy gets back on track, unemployment train will continue

Your recent editorial “Help the unemployed” [Opinion, April 14] criticized the GOP for resisting efforts to extend unemployment benefits. It said “helping those without work to sustain themselves until things improve is hardly a radical economic concept,” yet the position of The Times appears to be based more on misplaced empathy than the time-proven economic principles that actually get people back to work.

The Wall Street Journal’s lead editorial of the previous day quoted President Obama’s economic adviser, Lawrence Summers: “The second way government assistance program programs contribute to long term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a ‘reservation wage’ — the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase [the] reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer.”

Statistics show that most people will ride the unemployment assistance train to nearly the end of the line before they get serious about seeking work. Policies that encourage such behavior, on balance, benefit neither the unemployed nor the economy.

— Bob Benze, Silverdale

Time to make legal immigration the only immigration

I agree with Pramila Jaiyapa; we need immigration reform. [“We can’t afford to wait on immigration reform,” Opinion, April 15.] However, I do not agree with reform as she wants it — to give illegal immigrants a free pass to citizenship by legalizing millions of undocumented immigrants.

Being an illegal immigrant is a criminal act. The United States is a generous country, but we should not reward bad choices, as we did with the company bailouts, by having to pay more of our tax dollars to reward them.

Patience is wearing thin by law-abiding citizens who are paying for all the free benefits that illegals have been getting. My heart goes out to those facing deportation and the separation of families, but they need to face the consequences of bad choices and a gamble that Americans would just accept it as a cost of being a giving country.

We need immigration reform by tightening our borders, deporting illegals and helping those who are here legally to become citizens. Those who are here illegally should not have a voice to force themselves upon us.

— Larry Brickman, Bellevue

Rights only for those made in the USA

Who started the rumor that if you are born anywhere on Earth, you have the right to become an American citizen?

The United States cannot accept the output of the world’s choice to overpopulate, under-educate and commit war and famine instead of peace and prosperity. Immigrants in the past came to make the United States better, not just to improve their personal lives and fortunes. This country is great because real citizens shed blood, sweat and tears over the centuries to make this country the free, prosperous nation that it is.

The proper immigration reform would be to close our borders, send undocumented families to the adults’ country of origin and then revise the 14th Amendment to only give citizenship to babies who are born to U.S. citizens. Removing the back door “anchor baby” path to citizenship would reduce illegal border crossings, as would an improved guest-worker program.

Citizenship is a sacred birthright, and should not be casually given away. We are not all one family. The University of Washington is for taxpaying citizens and invited attendees and American troops are not dying in the Middle East for the rights of undocumented aliens to enjoy the safety, security and benefits of the United States for free.

— Byron Gilbert, Seattle

Let’s poll other ‘creepers’ too

To justify an anti-panhandling ordinance, Councilmember Tim Burgess cites surveys showing that people fear panhandlers [“Opponents assail panhandler limits,” NWThursday, April 15].

Brilliant —Lets take some more surveys to find out what other kinds of people are feared, such as blacks, Native Americans and rowdy teenagers. Then we can further boost the economy by restricting all of them from downtown Seattle.

— Terry Farrah, Seattle

Safe in the city? I think not

As a downtown resident and business owner, I encounter street disorder every day, which is both an annoyance and a serious concern.

Aggressive panhandling and solicitation impacts the quality of life for residents, visitors, employees and small-business owners. I empathize with the homeless and others down on their luck and understand their need to ask for a handout. But at the same time, I am disturbed, threatened and embarrassed for Seattle when overzealous solicitors and common hoodlums prey on street people and the rest of us alike.

We need the city to take immediate action on aggressive solicitation, drug dealing and general street disorder throughout downtown. I strongly support more police foot patrols and more police presence period, clear restrictions on aggressive solicitation, better coordination of outreach services and more housing with on-site support services to help those who need them.

All of us deserve to feel safe on the streets of this wonderful city.

— Brian Scott, Seattle

Spare a dime, save some time

I find that the tenor of Councilmember Tim Burgess’ panhandling amendment and The Seattle Times column supporting it [“An appropriate call for civil streets,” Opinion, April 15] threaten the city’s tenuous connection with compassion.

The amendment’s flawed language creates a law that relies far too heavily on police interpretation, making it easy to “sweep the streets” of people deemed detrimental to business profits. At its worst, the amendment takes an unsettling step toward criminalizing poverty and runs roughshod over civil rights.

The Times column attempts to cast this as an issue exclusively of behavior, yet it is both an issue of class and a penultimate test of how we as a city perceive and treat those who are impoverished, hungry and homeless. The Seattle Human Rights Commission, NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union have raised concerns regarding the amendment’s broad approach that penalizes panhandlers, and oppose it.

I urge Seattle’s council members to truly vote on the side of civility —on how we, as a society, treat all of our members —and vote no on this amendment.

On the streets of Seattle, it should not be a crime to hold out your hand, and say, “Brother or sister, could you spare a dime?”

— Nancy Dickeman, Seattle