Cabin owners are stewards of federal land

As described in The Times' article, families on Reclamation land who have had simple cabins 50 or more years now stand to lose them due to the new fee increase ["Families getting pushed out of cherished cabins," page one, Sept. 9]. Our experience with the Bureau of Reclamation is that of dealing with a heavy-handed bureaucracy whose hidden agenda is to remove all cabins from federal lands.

You will find cabin owners wonderful stewards of the land, and furthermore public access is not limited, as the general public has the right to use the waterfront on those leases. We have been working with the National Forest Homeowners and our congressional representatives to create a new method of valuation and fee establishment that would apply to all federal lands.

Hopefully this will become law in time to save those who cannot afford the new fee increases.

-- Bob McIntosh, Conconully Lakes Cabin Owners Association president, Renton

Cabins no sweetheart deal without renter's rights

I have talked to one of the people interviewed by Jonathan Martin for The Times article about families losing their Forest Service cabins, and the source assures me he emphasized several times that cabins on Forest Service land are there under special-use permits, not leases.

That is not a trivial distinction. Lease holders have rights Forest Service cabin owners can only dream of. We Forest Service cabin owners understood going in that the federal government would be our landlord, but the relationship is very one-sided. When they say, "jump," you have to ask, "How far?"

Regarding calling the cabins a sweetheart deal: If you project $1,400 for the life of the 20-year permit, that is $28,000 in fees to rent the land. Not exactly chump change, where you may or may not have power, phone, TV, paved roads, winter access, law enforcement or fire protection, to name just a few of the amenities city folk assume exist everywhere.

My cabin is in Northern California at Bucks Lake in the Plumas National Forest. Our fee increase is set to be 400 percent. There is something very wrong with an appraisal system that achieves a 400 percent increase in the middle of the most severe real-estate collapse since the Great Depression.

This is a real problem, affecting real families.

-- Mike Hoover, Reno, Nev.

Individual attention important to future success

Editor, The Times:

I am a 2003 graduate of the Washington state public school system now working in Portland. I've remained friends with several fantastic, supportive and inspiring teachers from my past, including several that are now working in the Kent School District.

As my K-12 school memories fade further into nostalgia and my agenda focuses more and more on my future theoretical children, the issues that the Kent teachers are fighting to amend ["Kent teachers vote to strike as talks go on," page one, Aug. 27] have a new sense of importance and urgency. We can't afford to let our kids suffer in large, anonymous classrooms and become nothing but a number in a district database. Not in a recession, not in a rebound, not ever.

Teachers and education are institutions that stay with us past high school, past college, into our daily lives to create successful and contributing adults. With attention and guidance from a young age, they teach us how to behave well and listen to others in classrooms and future board meetings. They teach us to respect each other and stop gossiping on the playground and around the coffee pot. They help us find how we learn and work best, so we can get our homework and our business proposals done.

Lessons like these, begun in the home and nurtured in the classroom, are much too important to compromise. It is with all this in mind, and at stake, that I put all my support behind the Kent teacher's strike.

-- Tabitha Blankenbiller, Wilsonville, Ore.

Teachers' raise a little relief in tough times

Let me get this straight. Many teachers have lost their jobs this fall due the financial meltdown of the marketplace. Those teachers who still have a job are facing higher classroom sizes due to the loss of their colleagues.

They will be working longer hours each day to keep up with their added responsibilities. The Legislature gave them a 0.6 percent pay cut by reducing the number of days they work by one day this year. And teachers' out-of-pocket expenses for family medical premiums will increase by around $100 per month more than the hundreds of dollars they already pay. And your Aug. 24 editorial ["Merit pay for teachers would end fight on pay," Opinion] complains because Seattle teachers got a 1 percent pay raise this year.

Don't you realize this 1 percent raise won't even cover the loss of state pay and the rise in monthly medical premiums? It's not like teachers' lives are getting any easier. If fact, this year will be extremely difficult for most workers in our state.

If you need to complain about pay raises or bonuses this year, then you should spend your time complaining about the outrageous raises and bonuses financial people on Wall Street and executives in board rooms are making this year. They are getting pay raises while teachers are taking an overall pay cut.

Stop blaming the average worker for trying to maintain their working wages in this economy, and demand financial institutions stop giving outrageous salaries to the very people who tanked our economy in the first place.

-- Peter G. Mohn, Bothell

Merit pay not a quick fix at all for improved education

The depth and breadth of the editorial board's ignorance of our educational system and of teachers' concerns and motivations took my breath away when I read the editorial on merit pay for teachers that appeared in The Times Aug. 24. In good conscience, I cannot let such a blatantly misleading portrayal of the situation stand unopposed by the facts.

The author states that, "Teachers are professionals who deserve strong compensation," immediately after an unveiled dig at the teachers' union for negotiating a 1 percent raise for its members "despite a recession meting out few raises anywhere."

Does the author support strong compensation for teachers or not? The snide remarks about teacher strikes being illegal further undermined my belief in the board's genuine support for teachers. By the way, if you were paying attention, you know that teachers in Bellevue felt compelled to strike because of detrimental teaching practices that had been foisted on them. Salary concerns were a secondary issue.

Merit pay is offensive to many teachers who, like me, bridle at the assumption that I would work harder to do a good job of educating my students if you paid me more. I wouldn't.

I work as hard as I can right now because I am a dedicated professional, and I have a very challenging job. Public education functions fundamentally differently from private industry, in which incentives like pay raises for increased productivity make sense.

People want educational reform because they want improved teaching and learning. Hallelujah! That takes a concerted effort over the long term with a significant investment of energy, research and resources.

If you'd like to know how it can be done, read the thoughtful article published in The Times about Finland. The Finns did it. It just took a commitment and plenty of money, a lot more than a futile quick fix like merit pay.

-- Marianne Clarke, Seattle

A stark picture made worse by merit pay in rough schools

It sounds so logical to tie student achievement to teacher's employment and or pay.
Teacher merit pay, based on a child's progress from A to Z, is inherently flawed and demeaning to teachers. You need only to teach or sub -- not just visit -- in the Seattle School District's "extremes" to be startled at the push for performance pay.

In the so-called failing schools, a teacher using all effort and resources may move a student only one bump on a progress chart. This hardly measurable step represents the best and deserves recognition.

In these poor achieving schools:

Income issues dominate family life, and one parent, grandparent or foster family are all too often the home life of many students. Parent involvement is minimal and adults at home are frequently victims of school failure while serious language and cultural issues run deep.

Class sizes can't be reduced but school aids are. Volunteers are few and far between. Discipline is complicated and daily disruptions rob children of learning.

Contrast this picture with "high performing" schools, which operate under the other side of all the negatives.

Contrary to the unchallenged mantra, we don't need to find and place the best teachers in our "failing" schools -- they are already there. We only need to honestly support them.

-- Michael McCullough, Seattle

In alternative schools, creativity thrives

Kudos to Lynne Varner for describing alternative public schools in Seattle as "models of creativity" ["State needs to hone its game in fight for education dollars," Opinion, column, Aug. 26]. Thanks also to Gov. Chris Gregoire, who also recognized that our programs can hold their own against the ever-popular charters: "The secretary was clear, that's what they're looking for -- nontraditional schools that allow students to excel," Gregoire told The Los Angeles Times. "I would like to show him some of our alternative schools and get his feedback."

As a parent of two children in public alternative programs, I have been disappointed that local leadership has been unable to recognize what alternative schools offer. The nonsupport we have become accustomed to over the last several administrations has turned into action that directly harms our programs under Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson, including school closures, forced relocations and the loss of autonomy so central to the charter model.

We hope the district's alternative-school audit, scheduled for September, will highlight the innovation that has been happening in our district for decades. Otherwise, alternatives will be out, and we will be stuck with charters, which were recently shown in a national study to offer little improvement over traditional public schools.

-- Chris Stewart, Seattle

Boeing built by region, owes much in return

Editor, The Times:

Those Boeing officials who are considering manufacturing the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina should study the company's history.

It was the natural resources of the Pacific Northwest out of which Boeing was created and built. Early on, it was the spruce forests of Oregon and Washington. Then it was the region's abundant and low-cost water power that generated the large amount of electricity needed to make aluminum when that became the basic material in airplane manufacture.

Throughout, it was the local intellectual, educational and governmental infrastructure, largely paid for by Washington taxpayers, that trained and nurtured a work force capable of designing and manufacturing great airplanes. South Carolina cannot take credit for any of this. Boeing, having capitalized on these resources, owes something in return.

-- Fred Granata, Lake Oswego, Ore.

Union members need to be team members

When will Everett's Mayor Ray Stephanson and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union understand why Boeing is seeking permits for a 787 Dreamliner final-assembly plant in South Carolina? ["Boeing expansion: permits not required," Opinion, editorial, Aug. 28.]

Boeing doesn't want to deal with striking union members. IAM members are being lead down a dark path with no future. IAM's leaders are relics from the past, and their strong-arm tactics are tiresome.

Consider these things: Boeing's nonunion employees look for ways to improve processes to stay competitive, you're encouraged to do the bare minimum; a company needs team members working toward a common goal, you're labeled as adversarial antagonists by the public; Boeing is in business to make money for everyone's benefit, not be held for ransom losing billions of dollars in revenue and forcing customers to look elsewhere while you're on strike; the list goes on.

Boeing doesn't want volatile workers on their payroll and neither would you. Boeing doesn't have to negotiate with the IAM anymore, they'll just move away. IAM members have a chance to think for themselves and do what's right for Boeing, its entire work force, its customers and suppliers.

Be team members and change for the better.

-- Conrad Rupp, Renton

Boeing going elsewhere doesn't produce results

I think the point has been proven that Boeing aircraft manufacturing must not move from the Seattle area. See what is happening when other parts of the nation and world try to build parts for the new Dreamliner 787? Wrinkles in the fuselage? Come on.

It looks like the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union strike didn't have much to do with the delay of first delivery, although I hope the union and Boeing can work out a deal to avoid such hassles in the future.

Keeping it all here will build the best airplanes available.

-- Douglas Mays, Seattle

In shut parks, a lost connection to earth

Editor, The Times:

A great sadness filled me as I read of the possibility that 39 King County parks may be shut down due to recent economic woes ["39 King County parks may be shut down," page one, Aug. 18].

Alas, what a devastating picture of national economic and global policies over these past eight years coming home to roost in our local neighborhoods, where there is little money for the needs of ordinary citizens but billions of dollars still handily available nationally for wars and corporations.

What will become of us if our green spaces are inaccessible? What will become of our children, many of whom have little access as it is to experiencing the joys of running across an open field or lying on the sweet green grass to look up through leafy trees at clouds against a blue sky?

How will our young ones learn to love the Earth so they grow up to become citizens who will care for it?

-- Jackie Leksen, Lynnwood

No sense in expensive light rail, closed parks

There are many, but rarely have I seen a better example of a dangerous malady that has been sweeping this state and country. A recent Seattle Times headline read, "39 King County parks may be shut down."

At the same time, Seattle opened a $2.5 billion light-rail line. This is the most expensive light rail ever constructed, costing $180 million per mile or $10,000 per Seattle household. Now, the operations of the train must be subsidized by taxpayers with $10 per ride if the number of riders estimated by Sound Transit are realized, which is doubtful. Further, Sound Transit is planning to spend many billions more to expand this ineffective rail system.

This indicates an unconscionable disregard for community priorities and the placing of politics and ideology ahead of the community's greater good. There are no winners but many victims.

Those who need transit and have no alternative will pay more and have less service, taxpayers will subsidize mostly people who have an alternative and the more than 90 percent of travelers who use the roads will continue to experience increasing congestion because money wasted on rail systems will not improve congestion or pollution.

When will we connect the dots between this stupidity and elected officials?

-- Jim Skaggs, Gig Harbor

Herbold's and Powell's economics don't make sense

The guest column in The Times from Robert J. Herbold and Scott S. Powell ["Government-dominated reform will not improve health care," Opinion, Aug. 23] only left me confused. But when I saw that both individuals were associated with the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank, I realized sewing confusion was the purpose.

They vaguely state that collectivism fails dismally in economics. First, every other industrial nation has more government involvement in health care with better results and on average half the costs.

Could that be considered economics? Second, individuals will often exercise independent initiative and decide it is more efficient to make certain decisions collectively. This is reflected in our fire departments, police departments, parks, schools, military, roads, patent offices and more.

Herbold and Powell fail to admit that having government involvement in health care is not the same as having the government making computers or socks. But they need to take that disingenuous leap in order to make their straw-man argument that government involved in health care equals Chinese-style communism from the 1950s, among other unsubstantiated conservative talking points.

Health-care and insurance executives can make $100,000 an hour. Yet 18,000 people a year die from lack of health care. I guess that's the good economics Herbold and Powell subscribe to.

-- Mike Thies, Seattle

Code words and scare tactics, but no solutions

Gun-toting hecklers don't attend town-hall meetings because they're interested in quality health care for Americans. They are motivated by ideology, and their aim is not to participate in the national conversation, but to stifle it.

Robert J. Herbold's and Scott S. Powell's screed is merely another form of heckling. Their column is long on code words and scare tactics but short on analysis and ideas. With their rhetorical guns blazing, they contribute nothing to the national conversation about affordable, quality health care.

Herbold and Powell write that health-care reform represents "an irretrievable loss of freedom" that undermines individual responsibility and free choice. Fourteen times they use the term collectivist or collectivism, and they throw in references to socialism and narcissism for good measure.

But they never mention the tens of millions of American children and adults who lack health insurance. And they fail to address the imbalance between the cost of American health care -- the most expensive in the world -- and its relatively poor health outcomes.

Those shaping the health-care-reform effort have tried too hard to accommodate the Herbolds and Powells.

Responsible lawmakers should stop attempting to appease the unappeasable, and consign them to the margins by calling them what they are: ideologically motivated hecklers.

-- Matt King, Seattle

Too much Ayn Rand from elite Americans

Robert J. Herbold´s and Scott S. Powell's commentary in The Seattle Times sounds like it was written by a couple of guys who read Ayn Rand and suffered a -- dare I say it -- collective attack of foolishness. They purvey myth after myth about government and the citizenry´s relation to it in a democracy as well as the ultimate fantasy -- that the unfettered will of capital defines freedom.

Let us begin with what the authors mistakenly call the visceral reaction that members of Congress encountered this summer. Here they unfurl the banner of spontaneity, the idea that voters on their own have risen up in anger -- collectively? -- against an elite that wishes to impose a government program upon an unwilling people.

Let us leave aside the fact that if in America there is an elite, then plainly the authors are card-carrying members. It is more interesting to address the supposed viscerality of the voters' responses. In actuality there was next to nothing spontaneous about it. On the contrary, it was cranked up by demagogues in the media who equate the action of government with encroachment of personal freedom.

Yet the authors' argument that the president's reforms will fetter our freedom has an unstated corollary -- that in the context of health care the insurance companies are the embodiment of liberty. Anyone who has lost or been refused insurance, who has been dropped from their rolls or who has duked it out with them over coverage knows that to be a delirious proposition.

Finally the authors retail the myth, a Rand favorite, of government action as collectivism. In this myth, all government action is created equal. The Soviet Union and China are no different from Great Britain, France and Germany, or indeed from an America that finally seems willing to extend health-care coverage to all its citizens.

The authors, pillars of one branch of America's elite, have turned a tired crank. If that is the best they can do, then reasoned political discussion of life-and-death issues is in very deep trouble in America.

-- Edward Baker, Seattle

Guest columnists don't understand Kennedy's call

Robert J. Herbold and Scott S. Powell show us clearly that the right's chorus of personal responsibility as the solution to our health-care problems is an evidence-free mythology. In fact, they base their entire piece on President John F. Kennedy's famous inaugural line: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for your country."

Herbold and Powell, he didn't say "but rather ask what you can do for yourself." Kennedy's statement was a call for each of us to contribute to the collective good, not to descend into the selfish individualism you advocate.

-- Aaron Katz, Seattle

Some required reading for health-care debaters

Kudos to The Seattle Times for printing an excellent guest column by Robert J. Herbold and Scott S. Powell ["Government-dominated reform will not improve health care," Opinion, Aug. 23]. These two guys really nailed it. It should be required reading by anyone interested in the current debate on whether or not to allow the federal government to become so heavily involved in our health-care system.

As the writers point out in such easy-to-understand wording, government health care would be a disaster, as a majority of Americans seem to be grasping. With the news now coming out of more and more trillions of dollars being added to President Obama's -- not Bush's -- deficit in the near future, the country simply cannot afford to let Uncle Sam further screw up the system.

-- Scott Stoppelman, LaConner

Diminished regulations, not collectivization, the threat to economy

Robert J. Herbold and Scott S. Powell try to compare failure of collectivization in the manner of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to an anticipated failure of collectivization in government-paid health care.

Encouraging borrowers to amass massive debt in an attempt to make huge profits cannot be equated to spreading risk over the entire population to make health care affordable. To bring about the housing crisis, regulations were diminished, thus encouraging fraud and foolish behavior. To obtain affordable universal health care, enforced regulations and standards would discourage abuse and foolish behavior. Collectivization, in itself, has nothing to do with it.

Read H.R. 676 instead of the endless explanations by Congressman Rick Larsen, Blue Dogs and agenda-driven think tanks that believe a single-payer health system will not work.

Denis Cortese of the Mayo Clinic ["Fresh ideas boost health reform," Opinion, syndicated columnist, Aug. 2] says it will work, and he has no incentive to deceive us.

-- James Bruner, Oak Harbor

Time for personal accountability from corporate crooks

I certainly hope The Seattle Times didn't pay Robert J. Herbold or Scott S. Powell for their thinly disguised market-knows-best rant.

Not only do they attempt to tag proponents of national health care as collectivists, but they blame the entire financial collapse on government bureaucracy. The financial collapse isn't due to the fact that twice in 30 years lenders have gamed the system with straw buyers and conveniently obfuscating financial instruments. No, financial collapse was due to government mismanagement and the suppression of infallible market forces.

Their thesis is hogwash, and until this country demands accountability out of both individuals and corporations, we will be systematically fleeced again and again. We need to treat swindlers harshly. No more country-club jails. Life sentences and hard labor.

Complete forfeiture of all property and equities including those belonging to anyone accepting transferred assets. And while we're at it, break up the corporate boards of directors who enable the "your lotto winnings are peanuts compared to my annual earnings" corporate pay structures.

Don't let businessmen tell us how to receive benefits that should be national services, or we are all going to become commodities working at the discretion of corporate overlords.

-- Michael McInnis, Seattle

Government shouldn't need to have all the answers

The article by Robert J. Herbold and Scott S. Powell was the best I've seen on the range of things it covered.

I hope there is still time to avert becoming just another country with citizens expecting the government to answer all of society's problems instead of taking personal responsibility for the choices made in life.

It's difficult to choose which of their points is best because the article is full of excellent ideas, but this one is right up near the top: "It is ludicrous to spend additional hundreds of billions for supposed health-care reform that will limit options, weaken competition and create the largest U.S. government bureaucracy ever while ignoring the reasons behind the insolvency of Medicare and Medicaid."

-- Jeanie McBee, Kenmore

Talking personal responsibility from an ivory tower

When Robert J. Herbold and Scott S. Powell claim in their guest column that "over the past 45 years personal responsibility has been marginalized by collective government policies," they presumably refer to the adoption of Medicare in 1965 but lack the guts to say so.

In their rant against "collectivist political power" from the sanctuary of the Hoover Institution's ivory tower, they display an insufferable arrogance and ignorance of the real world in which the United States is the only economically advanced country on the planet that doesn't or can't provide its people with the peace of mind of guaranteed adequate health care.

Herbold and Powell may have failed to notice that China, which they seem to offer as a model of economic and social policy, is still a communist-collectivist state that provides universal health care to its people.

I have no doubt that Herbold and Powell would also welcome the abandonment of Social Security and a return to the good old days of the late 19th century before the government started interfering with private industry by regulating child labor, wages, hours and the right of workers to organize.

-- Dan Levant, Seattle

In clunkers program, forgetting the three Rs

It seems people remember only two of the three R's: Reduce (what's that?), Reuse (huh?), Recycle (aah, there we go).

Many people seemed to have adopted a mindset like this: "I never reduce anything I consume, or reuse old but still workable things, but I throw that empty gallon in the green bin every time, so I can feel self righteous about my environmental efforts."

This same flawed mindset about helping the environment by recycling while not reducing or reusing is as flawed as the Cash for Clunkers program. People trade in perfectly good used cars for newer ones with better gas mileage, and although there is a benefit to better gas mileage, it doesn't offset the bad environmental impact that comes with destroying a good used car that could be reused.

This is simply a taxpayer-funded bailout of the auto industry that ultimately is going to cause a short boom followed by another hard bust. And the low-income folks, or just those trying to not live off credit like me and my family, now have fewer good used cars on the market to choose from, and with less supply there is more demand and higher prices.

Sure this will help the auto industry, but what about the auto-repair industry, which now has fewer used cars to maintain? People forget these government actions that help one group always hurt another group.

A better alternative is HR 1768, which would give tax rebates to those trading in for more fuel-efficient cars. This would allow those who trade in to keep more of their own money through a tax rebate, while not causing the taxpayer to be billed for an environmentally unfriendly program. It would also give those with less money more used cars to choose from.

-- Seth Copeland, Edmonds

Convert clunker program to make natural gas cars

Instead of giving car buyers $4,500 to buy a gasoline-powered, fuel-efficient car, spend the money on converting existing new cars to natural gas.

That way we put more cars on the road that burn a fuel -- natural gas -- made in the U.S.A. instead of oil from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Vietnam, Iraq, or someplace where there is an oil war.

-- Martin Nix, Seattle

A call for compassion in 'cash for clunkers'

While the "cash for clunkers" has been a huge success for the automobile industry, I think it's important to point out not everyone got an opportunity to trade in their old car for a nice new one. Specifically, someone who is recently widowed.

My best friend died in April, and his wife dutifully had the registration on his 1999 Cadillac transferred to her name. She recently made the trek to a dealership in Kirkland to trade it in on a new Chevy Aveo only to find out she hadn't "owned the car for a year."

She pointed out that while the car's title had been in her husband's name, the insurance was in both of their names, and she had his death certificate and all of the other supporting documentation showing the car belonged to the family for more than four years.

She called the government's hotline, which confirmed she indeed did not qualify because she had not owned the car for the required 12 months.

It seems a shame that in the rush to put money into the car companies' bank accounts, those who drafted this bit of pork couldn't have found it in their hearts to include those who have recently been dealt a tough blow in life and who could probably use a break now more than most.

-- Randy Carl, Kent

Clunkers rebates too high for small mileage improvement

The "cash for clunkers" program is obviously popular and an unequivocal boon to automobile dealers and Americans who want to unload their low-value gas guzzlers.
But the program is not nearly as effective as it could be -- as it should be -- in producing environmental gains with this generous subsidy.

Before we pour billions of more tax dollars into this program, the U.S. Senate should seize the opportunity to elevate the fuel-efficiency standards for clunker trades to qualify for a subsidy. Buyers have been getting $3,500 rebates for buying new vehicles that get as few as four miles per gallon more than their clunkers. And buyers have been getting a maximum $4,500 rebate for new cars and trucks that get an extra 10 miles per gallon.

This program needs to be recalibrated to provide a better return on benefits to energy security and the environment.

-- Andrew Prieditis, Seattle

Nothing but idiocy in 'cash for clunkers'

It is astounding that the Obama administration would join Congress in lauding and rescuing one of the most poorly planned and thought-out programs ever.

I voted for President Obama on the hope that yes, maybe "we can." He seemed so authentic, and I was especially heartened by his oft-stated concern for environmental issues.

This "cash for clunkers" gimmick, however, is irresponsible and totally contrary to the goal of developing a future energy policy that is not based solely on fossil fuels.

It rewards greedy car owners who can turn in their oldest car, get a brand new one that makes just a couple more miles per gallon and pocket $4,500 from the National Treasury. Now they can add a high-end hybrid to their shiny new Lexus and claim to be green.

Did it not occur to Congress and the president that the neighborhood meth addict can now turn in his pile of junk for a nice new ride and plenty of money to feed his addiction?

This is nothing more than a free gift to the greedy and the car dealerships under the guise of doing something to combat global warming.

Just brilliant. Brilliant idiocy.

-- Richard P. Champlin. Seattle

Government can't handle 'cash for clunkers' -- or health care

President Obama's "cash for clunkers" program is well named.

Under the program, you can buy a new car and receive credit up to $4,500 of taxpayer money if your new car gets at least four gallons per mile more than the trade-in. Once the trade is made, the trade-in car is crushed, even though there are thousands of hard-working citizens who would love to have it.

The government estimated that the $1 billion funding would cover the program for four months, but it went broke after four days. The government is in total confusion as to how to administer it.

After changing its position three times, Obama's administration proposed an additional $2 billion.

And this is the same government that wants to administer its proposed massive health-care program.

Good luck, America. You will need it!

-- Richard King, Seattle

No faith in government health care after clunkers debacle

Congress gives us "cash for clunkers" and four days later suspends it, leaving buyers and dealers in limbo over the weekend. These same Congressmen promise we can keep our health insurance and doctor with their government option. Incredible.

-- Phillip A. Scott, Maple Valley

Just follow the signs to see why Boeing may leave

A recent visit to the Boeing plant in Mukilteo provides a poignant metaphor for the relationship between Boeing and Greater Seattle. Many other visitors and I got lost on the way to the Boeing tour due to insufficient signs.

Boeing advised us that the government highway authorities thought there were too many signs already and refused to allow Boeing to put up signs directing visitors to their tourist facilities. I can assure you South Carolina will ask Boeing, "How many signs?" and "Where shall we put 'em?"

Sam Howe Verhovek ["Boeing and Puget Sound -- shared DNA," Opinion, guest columnist, July 19] engages in some wishful thinking in hypothesizing that Boeing rocket scientists have overlooked important factors in their move.

What is surprising is that they have waited this long. Boeing gives me the same feeling that Caterpillar did in the '90 s when they were dealing with labor unrest. They made the tough decisions and have been the darling of Wall Street ever since.

Boeing is appropriately responding to Seattle's tepid embrace.

-- Bob Bell, Brooklyn, New York

Unions aren't team players for Boeing success

A word of advice to Boeing unions, specifically the International Association of Machinists: As an outsider looking in, I can tell you that you're being led down a dark path with no future.

Your leaders are relics from the past and their strong-arm tactics are tiresome. Consider that Boeing's nonunion employees look for ways to improve processes to stay competitive, yet you are encouraged to do the bare minimum. A company needs team members working toward a common goal, but you're labeled as adversarial antagonists by the public. Boeing is in business to make money for everyone's benefit, not to be held for ransom losing billions of dollars in revenue and forcing customers to look elsewhere while you're on strike, and the list goes on.

Boeing doesn't want volatile workers on their payroll and neither would you. Get your heads out of the sand, guys and gals: Boeing doesn't have to negotiate with you anymore. They will just move away. You've got a chance to think for yourselves, and do what's right for Boeing, its entire work force, its customers and suppliers.

Be team members, and change for the better.

-- Conrad Rupp, Renton

Plastic bags for plastic wings?

Could it be that, secretly, Boeing is behind the plastic grocery bag ban because it needs plastic bags for the wing repair on the 787 Dreamliner?

-- Ed Anderson, Kirkland

Disposable bags have hidden costs

In response to Bruce Ramsey's assertions ["Civil disagreement: Should Seattle tax disposable grocery bags?" seattletimes.com, Ed Cetera blog, July 23]: No, disposable bags aren't free.

Plastic bags create a litter problem that the city has to spend tax dollars to fix. They also jam Seattle Public Utilities' recycling equipment, which costs you as a ratepayer.

Moreover, we can only hazard an educated guess at the long-term environmental cost of the greenhouse-gas emissions created by producing paper and plastic bags.

Seattleites should support the voluntary fee on paper and plastic bags because it will benefit the environment and help reduce waste. I would think responsible Seattleites might also support Referendum 1 because it will save them money over the long term.

-- Blair Anundson, Seattle

"Hurting the poor" line is no argument at all

I was incensed to see the full-page ad (shows you how much money they already have) paid for by the chemical industry urging Seattle citizens to vote against the plastic bag tax. It was a great relief a few pages later to see the thoughtful and coherent guest column by Kathy Fletcher and Denis Hayes urging us to pass the bag tax ["Vote to eliminate disposable grocery bags," Opinion, July 28].

It's astonishing there is even a question about this: It's so obvious that using cloth bags benefits everyone except Exxon, Chevron, DuPont and the ilk. The opposition's pathetic and transparent attempt to cite the poor as sufferers if this sensible idea becomes law is a curious attempt to find something -- anything -- to grab a vote. The poor worldwide, and ever since shopping began, have used cloth or string bags -- as has everyone with any sense.

-- Nancy Pennington, Seattle

Let's take care of the needy before the environment

I am very proud of how green our city has become. At our house, we hardly use our garbage disposal, recycle our food waste, yard clippings, bottles, papers and plastic bags. We also garden organically. Our car always carries reusable grocery bags, and we both have packs and bags for unexpected purchases.

However, when I first heard about the drive for a bag fee my very words to my husband were, "This will kill the poor and homeless." In our drive to be environmentally sensitive, we need to also step out of our own worlds and think about being sensitive to the unpredictable lives of the least among us.

Not everyone leads my privileged existence. We should take care of the planet but not forget to take care of the suffering people on it.

-- Toni Cross, Seattle

Politicians, please stay out of my kitchen

I just completed one of life's simple pleasures -- reading The Seattle Times. It arrived, as it does every day, in a plastic bag!

If we eliminate the plastic bags, can we still expect a clean, dry Seattle Times on our doorstep every morning?

We still use our supermarket bags to line garbage containers (in your face, Kathy Fletcher) and dutifully recycle any of the remaining bags. If we eliminate the plastic bags we will be required to buy replacements.

Reducing the number of plastic bags is a noble goal, but we should reach that goal through education, not legislation. Mayor [Greg] Nickels, please stay out of our kitchen.

-- Merle Hanley, Seattle

With education, increase recycling and responsible use

Oh my, even our progressive environmentalists can fall behind the times and technology. Kathy Fletcher and Denis Hayes are right about the need to protect our natural world, but they seem to be stuck in that stereotypical "man and greedy business are to blame for destroying Mother Earth -- if only the two would go away" train of thought.

The Environmental Protection Agency tells us plastic bags are more environmentally friendly than paper bags when considering the methods and shipping required for their respective production and, in fact, plastic causes less air and water pollution and is a better method of preventing food-borne illness.

For the record, I am not a greedy industrialist. Perpetuating eternal crises is the mantra of extremist groups, but is anyone really against Puget Sound? For them, theirs is the only enlightened path, and there is no compromise. Man and profit are always evil.

Well, the reality is, humans and their need to exist and thrive will not go away. In order to keep balance, man has always developed technology to solve its problems. Fletcher and Hayes demand complete and irrevocable removal of plastic bags from Seattle but do not mention the successes other large cities have experienced in reducing and recycling plastic. Phoenix, Twin Cities and states like Illinois and California, for example, have programs that have dramatically reduced plastic use and enhanced recycling efforts. In six months alone, Phoenix has increased recycling by 20 percent.

The truth so often is in the middle. Plastics serve a vital role in our society, but approaching the issue through recycling, anti-littering campaigns and judicious use is the answer -- not taxing plastic bags.

Supporting responsible programs trumps hysteria. Fletcher and Hayes should get on board.

-- Mark L. Bowers, Issaquah

Reusable bags are so much simpler

Kathy Fletcher and Denis Hayes' guest column was informative and useful, as it showed the inherent waste of these bags as a compelling reason not to use them.

I switched primarily for convenience, as it was becoming a colossal pain dealing with those bulging bags. Some random observations about plastic bags.

My reusable carryalls stay in my car after being emptied. They wipe clean if necessary. They are stackable and light, yet quite sturdy.

Mine were $1, purchased at a dollar store.

This has been my system for a few years. For a while, I expected the checkers and cashiers would resent having their "bag by the belly" routine disrupted, but the opposite has been the case. They still try to scan them and charge me if I'm not on top of it, but generally they welcome reusable bag use.

I think people are resistant to this change because they don't see what's in it for them. If some of the grocery or retail behemoths offered something like the blue plastic bags, they could easily see a decent profit by doubling dollar-store prices, if not tripling them.

This opinion is offered by a person who is lazy and not a shining example for the recycling effort. I use these bags because it is so much simpler.

-- Regina Ambrose, Auburn

Instead of taxing plastic bags, reward reusable bag use

I disagree with Kathy Fletcher and Denis Hayes' guest column. While their desire to see fewer plastic bags befoul the environment has merit, their way of going about it lacks as much.

Instead of charging each shopper 20 cents per time they get a plastic bag, why not incentivize them by giving a discount when they opt to reuse one?
The grocery store where I shop already gives shoppers a 3-cents-per-bag discount when they use a reusable bag. It's not much, but it's something. It helps me remember to use the totes.

I suspect our local politicians like the idea of the bag tax because it's another way for them to get revenue out of an already beleaguered consumer. The last thing we need is to give our city bureaucracy more money to mismanage.

-- Marc Melino, Seattle

Plastic bag irony on my doorstep

I am in total agreement with Kathy Fletcher and Denis Hayes' guest column regarding the bag tax. However, I find it ironic that this morning's Seattle Times came inside a plastic bag!

-- Steve Cramer, Federal Way

Cost of Canadian health care still lower than U.S.

Letter writer Dana Keith ["Canadians do pay for health care," Northwest Voices, Opinion, July 25] is correct in stating that Canadians do pay for their health care. As is the case with all government services, they pay with their tax dollars, just as one pays with a private health-care plan.

However, the total cost of the Canadian system is 10 percent to 11 percent of their gross domestic product compared with around 17 percent in the U.S.

In addition, all Canadian citizens are covered with a provincial Medical Services Plan, which receives funds from the federal government via tax transfers. The system is therefore a single-payer one, whereby everyone contributes to the care of all citizens.
Individuals choose their own physicians, who decide what care is required -- not the government, regardless of what you might hear on radio and TV talk shows -- and they do not have to ante up large sums for emergency and intensive care or even for infant delivery. The system works very well.

-- Stephen Calvert, Tsawwassen, B.C.

Lower costs, lower mortality rates in superior Canadian system

Dana Keith writes to tell us that Canadians pay for their health care by an increase in taxes. This is not new information.

Their health-care system is entirely supported by taxes. But the total cost of their health-care system is one-third to one-half of the United States' cost. This is well documented in data published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the World Health Organization, just to name two.

What do Canadians get for this? First, their entire population gets health. Compared to us, they live two years longer, have a lower infant-mortality rate and a lower maternal-mortality rate. I mention this information because it is the basis for how health-care systems are evaluated by health economists.

Based on the evaluations of health economists, Canada ranks in the top 10 in the world of health care. The U.S. ranks in the mid-30s, about equal to Cuba. Cuba spends about one-tenth what the U.S. spends to achieve the same results.

The U.S. spends more per person for health care than any other country in the world. This is largely, probably entirely, due to our health-insurance industry, which is very profitable but not in the business of providing health care. Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" delineates this well and has been repeatedly confirmed by studies and investigations since.

Citizens should question strongly the assertions, lies and evasions of the health industry. They're after the big bucks, not your health.

-- Donald J. Sherrard, M.D., Bellevue

Current health care poses real economic risk

The average cost of an employer-provided family health-insurance policy is on the rise and could nearly double by 2016 if Congress doesn't act now. This could mean economic disaster for every family and employer. We all should be working to avoid it.

That's why I can't understand why some in Congress want to block President Obama's plan to rein in these rising costs. Maybe it has something to do with the $2.7 billion in our health-care dollars that insurers and drug companies spent on lobbying over the past 10 years.

Our state's congressional delegation must put aside the political games and pass comprehensive health reform now.

-- Anthony J. Crawford, Bremerton

In 1,000-page bill, too much room for loopholes and earmarks

In reply to the excellent letters to the editor [Opinion, Northwest Voices, July 27], I have a question. If $500,000 from the manufacturers of paper and plastic bags is funding opposition to a 20-cent bag tax, what can we deduce about the billions of dollars being thrown at health-care reform by the insurance and pharmaceutical companies?

President Obama is not really urging Congress to just vote on a bill that is more than 1,000 pages long. He is urging Congress to enact reform that the deep pockets have stalled for decades. A 1,000-page bill is long enough and complicated enough to hide countless loopholes and benefits for special interests who are throwing money at our elected officials.

There is also a 30-page bill, H.R. 676, that has been recycled and improved since 1993, when it was buried by the same special interests that are fighting reform today. This simple, single-payer plan would use money collected from payroll taxes and redirected from other government programs to pay medical doctors and clinicians for medical services and devices, including long-term care and other desirable features that are neglected in the myriad private plans and the ill-defined public option offered as choices in the 1,000-page bill. H.R. 676 is simply an improved and expanded version of Medicare that would be adequately funded and thus insured to succeed.

H.R. 676 is co-sponsored by almost 90 members of the House of Representatives, including Washington Reps. Jim McDermott and Norm Dicks. The rest of the House is either influenced by the billions in lobbyist money or just waiting to see which way the wind blows.

Please blow fresh air into this sordid mess, and urge our members of Congress to pass a single-payer plan like what is described in H.R. 676. That is what a rational senator or representative would do.

-- James Bruner, Oak Harbor

Right-wing pundits have no solutions for broken health care

I am sick to death of the likes of Charles Krauthammer ["Obamacare vs. fiscal reality: the health-care nirvana fantasy," Opinion, syndicated column, July 26] once again rolling out the oldest red herring in the right-wing health-care arsenal: that the high cost of treatment in America is about lawyers and litigation.

In reality, the cost of lawsuits is less than 1 percent of U.S. health-care spending, and in states like Texas and Florida where vigorous tort reform has passed, health-care costs are skyrocketing along with the rest of the country. The most compelling piece I've read about health-care cost in America is by Dr. Atul Gawande. He compares the two cities of McAllen and El Paso, Texas. Both cities have virtually identical demographics, but health-care spending per capita in McAllen is nearly double El Paso's. The conclusion I drew was that in McAllen health care is focused on profits while in El Paso it is focused on patients.

You will never see Krauthammer publish the obscene CEO salaries routinely handed out in the health-care industry. You will never see him address the increasing number of physicians who own their own laboratories and surgery centers while refusing Medicare patients. You will never see him address the fact that rising health-care costs have the power to bring down the American economy. You will never see him provide his plan for change because he doesn't have one, and he doesn't believe health care is a right anyway. Krauthammer's column is not worth the paper it's written on.

In my opinion, the problem with the American heath-care system is that it is an inefficient, bloated bureaucracy with maximization of profit at it's heart rather than prevention or treatment of illness. For-profit health care is an unsustainable oxymoron.

-- Judy Neldam, Duvall

In my daughter's struggle, find why we need reform

My daughter died this week from a heart attack that could have been prevented. She had asked Washington state for medical help and was denied because she was $3 over the income limit.

She had blood-pressure problems that could have been controlled with medication, a cyst in her knee which made walking painful and her body did not make the red in her blood very well. She had to have several blood transfusions a couple of years ago due to this condition.

But after that, none of these issues were addressed due to money. Even low-income clinics want money, and she did not have enough to cover living expenses and co-pays.
Those of you who have medical coverage and are fighting single-payer health care should have such a tragic event occur to you. I think it is the only way you will understand what is happening.

Apparently, if you are poor, your life is of no value in this country.

-- Bernice Larsen, Puyallup

Medicare is a harbinger of national health-care failure

From personal experience, I reject the idea of government-paid health care for all.
Many people don't recall the establishment of Medicare and how it chased private insurance for seniors out of the market. Employers and insurance companies saw no reason to deal with the expense and administration of their plans in competition with the government plan. Obviously, this will happen again if the government starts covering all citizens. You will not be able to keep your current insurance whether or not you are happy with it.

Regarding the operation of Medicare, it is well known that its payments are seriously below market rates. Many doctors will not accept Medicare patients. I can name offhand four people who were notified by their large clinics that their Medicare coverage would no longer be accepted; just think how many more patients received that notification. I must travel to a neighboring city for a particular medical specialty because none of the local practitioners will accept Medicare.

Clearly, the government administration of Medicare is a failure. Why should we expand the program for an even greater failure -- and a terribly expensive failure at that?

-- Bernice Oberson, Kirkland

Congress, take your time on health-care reform

Why would any rational senator or representative vote, yea or nay, on a bill that is more than 1,000 pages long, that would not take effect for four years and that they had not read? Why would President Obama tell us such a bill was absolutely essential to pass within two weeks?

-- Al and Linda King, Olympia

Health care 'too expensive' because it's for the American people

Politicians are convincing the American people that health-care reform is too expensive, and the $1 trillion cost over 10 years must be paid upfront. Why can't we spend $100 billion annually to improve the lives of ordinary citizens? Why is this program too expensive, when compared with some of the other recently approved programs that have racked up similar bills? Why? Because the program will benefit the lives of real Americans.

In the last seven years, our representatives had no trouble approving our hard-earned tax dollars to be spent on a pre-emptive war in Iraq, which has cost us nearly a trillion dollars in six years.

In September 2008, Congress passed TARP, giving nearly a trillion dollars of our money to Wall Street. When the Medicare Drug plan was passed, the Congressional Budget Office also predicted the cost to taxpayers at nearly a $1 trillion over 10 years, benefiting pharmaceuticals.

The money isn't going to the military-industrial complex, the pharmaceutical complex or the wealthy CEOs on Wall Street, who give our politicians millions in campaign dollars. The money is going to you and me. Suddenly this program is too expensive and can't be rushed. What nonsense!

-- Glenda Tecklenburg, Mill Creek

What's with the delay on health-care reform?

I cannot believe Congress' inability to move on health care. Has our political system become so saturated with special-interest money that we have become unable to move legislation as critically important as health-care reform?

There has never been a time when the power in the House and Senate is actually primed for meaningful reform. What in the world is keeping lawmakers from moving toward universal coverage that includes at a minimum a public option that leads to modification of the insurance industry's stranglehold on health care?

How much more profit must be gained from sickness management and nonmanagement of cherry-picked populations? How much longer are we going to pay 10 times the amount for primary care in the emergency rooms for citizens that do not have coverage.

The whole notion of a single-payer system was taken from the table before it made it the first round of discussion. How much longer will the population be misled by the opponents of universal coverage trashing the Canadian system.

Canadians would revolt in masses if there was even the slightest attempt to modify their health-care system. If ever there was a time for U.S. citizens to rise to the occasion, this is it.

-- Michael Johnson, Shoreline

In time of need, money shouldn't get in the way

As a dual citizen, I have had the privilege to see both the American and Canadian systems at work.

My mother, an American, was diagnosed with a very aggressive brain tumor. My mother, never being a quitter, chose to follow the doctor's recommendation of treating the tumor even though she was given a less than 10 percent chance of survival. Though she had a premium heath-care plan, she had to fight to get her chemotherapy paid for.

In the end, the medical intervention extended her life by only a few tortuous months. No one profited except those providing the treatment. In the midst of his grief, my father worried about whether her insurance would cover all of the cost of her time in the hospital. In the end, the bills were paid but not without major financial uncertainty and anxiety.

In contrast, two years later, my four-month-old son was diagnosed in Canada with a cancer-like disease. We saw our pediatrician at 11:30 a.m. and an oncologist at 3 p.m. the same day, and he was admitted to begin tests two days later.

The care was entirely free and the only scars we bear are on my son's neck. I believe the care was some of the best in the world, and I trusted the doctors' recommendations. There was no discussion of money or motivation. We were able to focus on the health of our child.

In times of crisis, families need to focus on their loved one, not on who will pay the bills.

-- Wendy Ilott, Edmonton, Alberta

Canadian health care for all U.S. citizens

I heard Mary Scott of Mount Vernon interviewed on Canadian Broadcasting Corp. radio. She wrote The Vancouver Sun asking Canadians to write The Seattle Times with the truth about our health care.

I am a family physician in Ontario, and I hear complaints about waiting. But I also hear great compliments about how the system came through in spades when there was a major need in one's health. Nothing is perfect, but I never, ever hear of a patient loosing their home in Canada because they had health bills to pay.

I am amazed there is so much erroneous denigrating of the Canadian health-care system by some people in the U.S.A. We are such close neighbors -- clearly the truth should be more evident that it can be done much better than your current system. You do have wonderful facilities and great practitioners, but you also have millions with no insurance coverage.

I hope your voters choose a Canadian-like health-care system for the benefit of your whole population.

-- Gordon E. Riddle, M.D., Ottawa, Ontario

From an insider, private insurance is broken

I have experienced health care as a consumer, as a developer for an insurance company, as the director of information technology for a mental-health agency and as the bookkeeper for a provider. I'll admit I like and respect my doctor, but that is the only place where I have experienced our system as satisfactory.

As the bookkeeper for a provider recognized by about 20 insurance companies, my personal frustration has hit new highs. Our health-care system is too disorganized. No two companies have the same forms. Some have different billing systems for different services. Some use online systems, others require faxing, others require communication through the Post Office. Some require we return a form they send us and some use industry-standard forms. Some use both depending on the service.

When we are paid, it can be based on what we billed, but mostly it isn't -- it's based on rules unique to each company. Yes, they have shared the rules, but the rules change with each insurance company and even within a single company based on service provided.

The current system is in the process of self-destructing.

-- Steve Paul, Seattle

Prescription drugs should be part of reform

The $40 million the pharmaceutical industry spent lobbying Congress from April 1 through June 30 probably explains why lowering drug costs is not a major part of the health-care-reform debate. But it should be.

Pharmaceutical companies advertise their most expensive drugs in direct marketing to consumers and encourage Americans to ask their doctors to prescribe them. As a result, patients arrive at doctor's offices, demanding this or that medicine they've just learned about through advertising. The beneficiary is the drug industry, which earns huge profits and even gets a tax write-off for advertising costs.

Among industrialized countries, only the U.S. and New Zealand allow pharmaceutical companies to market directly to consumers. It was not allowed when I was younger, and I believe it should be outlawed now.

-- Vicki King, Seattle

Healthy health-care system will bring healthy economy

President Obama's speech ["Obama not backing down on health care," page one, July 23] shows a president determined to make a difference for this country and its citizens, despite the large political risks involved.

Obama understands and is trying to explain that the status quo is not a viable option. To those who talk about choice, and the prospect of losing it, need I remind you that for most of us our health-care choices are largely proscribed by our health-insurance policies.

But the big-picture issue, alluded to by the president, are the enormous economic implications of the current system. Spiraling health-care costs are an uncompetitive fact of life for doing business in the United States that give pause to multinational companies with options overseas. Our per-hour labor costs are often lower than many European countries and Japan, but when health-care costs are figured into the equation, the U.S. becomes an unattractive location for a new venture.

Thus, our long-term economic health, not just our physical health, will be largely determined by whether we act now to reform our health-care system and reign in costs.

-- Jonathan Ryweck, Port Townsend

Forget more taxes, let's scrap the foot-ferries idea

King County Executive Kurt Triplett says we have to raise taxes to avoid closing 39 parks, public-health clinics and regional police services ["County exec: Tax needed to avoid closures," NWSaturday, July 18].

I've got a better idea: How about funding those necessary services by shifting funds from the new $220 million foot-ferry fleet that King County wants to install on Lake Washington and Puget Sound ["The folly of foot ferries," NWWednesday, Danny Westneat column, July 15]? The cost for a 30-minute walk-on ferry ride in that system is estimated at from $24 to $324 per rider. And that's only one-way!

None of these planned routes are projected to attract more than 300 riders a day, even during the highest ridership period. King County throws precious taxpayer dollars at quixotic projects like this foot-ferry fleet, then comes whining to the taxpayer that, "We simply don't have the money for public-health clinics and regional police services."

-- Frank Schumann, Seattle

Cut the nonessentials instead, taxes have already risen

King County Executive Kurt Triplett talks about supporting a property tax increase, but he fails to mention property taxes have already increased for the 2009 tax year. Council members Larry Gossett and Julia Patterson have proposed this bright idea.

The facts are that the value of my Shoreline home increased by 12.5 percent for the 2009 tax year despite the fact that property values decreased in 2008. The 2009 tax amount increased by 13.5 percent. Not a small jump, and I am certainly not in favor of another property-tax increase.

Increasing the sales tax is another bad idea. Visiting a shopping mall clearly indicates that people are limiting their spending for nonessentials. Those on unemployment have already tightened their belt more than once, so where does Triplett think the money will come from?

Maybe the King County Council should look at their budget and eliminate the nonessentials from their spending.

-- Fran Whitehill, Shoreline

We should be questioning, not applauding, pork spending

In your editorial ["Murray stimulates state ferry funding," Opinion, July 16] on how Sen. Patty Murray has righted the "error" where Seattle did not get our fair share of the stimulus money set aside for ferries, the author stated: "Murray has helped right the balance by securing the extra $7.6 million. It is for these sorts of rescues that we have senators."

This entire stimulus process feels like the story of the frog sitting in the water when the heat is turned up to the point that frog gets used to the heat and boils to death. The editorial staff is like that frog that has become so comfortable with the premise that the stimulus package is justified that instead of simply questioning stupid spending and returning it to taxpayers, the argument is "our spending is less stupid than your spending so we should get a bigger piece of the pie."

I just can't tell you how disappointed I am that there is such widespread acceptance that the stimulus pork is right and justified, and it is our senator's and congressman's jobs to "rescue" us from our not getting our share of wasteful spending. I would have hoped that the author of this editorial would have at least questioned whether spending the money in the first place made sense. I would have hoped that they would have at least considered that our senators should act as stewards for the entire country's tax dollars and eliminating wasteful spending is " ... the sort of rescues we have senators for."

Maybe we have just come so comfortable with the idea of soaking the rich to pay for everything that we forget we are taking money away from some hardworking American to pay for this pork.

-- Doug Ralphs, Seattle

Different ferry requests would have brought better results

There is nothing surprising about the Washington State Ferry System getting shut out of stimulus funding and then receiving only a portion of what it asked for. According to a Seattle Times article ["Feds snub biggest ferry fleet," page one, July 15], $60 million was the allocation for funding programs from the entire 50 states.

Washington put in a $26 million proposal to replace the Anacortes Ferry terminal, almost 50 percent of the potential funds. In addition, it asked for $9 million to rehab a Bremerton/Seattle ferry, whereas the largest single funded grant for a ferry was for a brand new one in Texas -- and it was $2 million less.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Anacortes terminal and facility is not in that poor of shape, it services primarily island locals and visitors and not daily commuters. The grants funded were much smaller and went to areas that had serious economic downturn and where the funds would assist getting people to and from work.

Smaller, more appropriately targeted grants would have faired much better. Washington may have the largest ferry fleet in the U.S. but the logic used by the ferry system and the governor's office in this grant submission cycle was flawed.

-- Bob Squaglia, Seattle

More work from representatives would have brought results

Sen. Patty Murray's seniority and influence was very useful in getting a whopping $750,000 for the Guemes Island ferry despite the fact that Washington has the largest ferry system in the country.

I personally hate the entire stimulus package, but since it passed you would have figured that our ferry system would have gotten a large share. Murray loves to mention her influence and ability to get projects done in our state, but seemed to have missed the mark when it truly counted.

I know what could have helped: Sen. Murray and Sen. Maria Cantwell along with Rep. Norm Dicks, Rep. Rick Larsen, Rep. Adam Smith and Rep. Jim McDermott should have walked into Secretary Ray LaHood's office with shovels in hand to demonstrate "shovel ready."

We can make Gov. Chris Gregoire the foreman!

-- Todd Welch, Everett

In recession, ferry pork is better spent elsewhere

Stimulus money should be used to provide jobs now. Using it to design a ferry that won't be built for years is just plain pork.

That money could be used to hire workers, directly or though contractors, to fix roads, maintain parks, keep state and local workers on the payroll or do a number of other things that would enable people to earn wages. Now.

-- Tom Difloe, Camano Island

Shouldn't Murray not have to 'rescue' us?

I am responding to your editorial in which you concluded, "It is for these sorts of rescues that we have senators." Why does Sen. Murray always feel the need to rescue us. Does she have to be underdog?

This is the second time that Murray has not been proactive in getting something major for businesses in our state. It wasn't long ago she had to push and push for reconsideration of a government project for Boeing.

We need her to be our cheerleader and advocate, looking out for us and securing what is needed as it is being considered. Our senators should be proactive, not reactionary. If she truly did her job, we wouldn't need rescuing.

-- Jane Bennett, Bellevue

New bill would sort out messy trade

The Times editorial ["Anti-trade bill would hurt Washington state," Opinion, July 15] opposing the TRADE Act of 2009 was hasty and reflexive. In 1993, "free" trade advocates promised a trade surplus, millions of new good jobs, access to markets and a solution to our immigration problems with Mexico. Since then, our trade balance rolled up $6 trillion in deficits, our economy has been de-industrialized and conditions in Mexico suffered, sending immigrants north.

We did get access to markets. As workers, we thought that meant access to consumers who would buy what we make. Businesses clearly understood that to mean access to producers who would make things for us to buy.

We are conditioned to say trade is good, all trade is good, more trade is best. Maximum possible trade. This is sloppy language and sloppy economics.

The TRADE Act is a first step to sorting out exactly how trade can raise our standard of living. The goal is mutual gain, not more trade.

-- Stan Sorscher, Seattle

Citizens interests at heart in new trade policy

You guys are so right!

We need to keep the "busybodies" (i.e., citizens) out of decisions about our economy and trade policy, and instead leave it up to the corporations and their lobbyists.

After all, they have our best interests at heart, and -- as recent economic trends have shown -- have a great track record creating stable economic conditions and shared prosperity for all of us.

There is clearly no reason for us "little guys" to muck around with a system that is working so well not!

-- Marina Skumanich, Seattle

Electric bus wires should go so houses can move

Editor, The Times:

In the July 9 front-page article headlined "Houses vs. trees," it wasn't until deep in the story that we learn the true nature of the conflict. A more accurate headline would have been "Trees vs. electric bus wires."

A lush overhang of mature trees makes a neighborhood walkable, enhances home values and beautifies the neighborhood and, by extension, the city. These values are not easily quantifiable, but they cannot be replaced. Based on the front-page photograph, those trees are as old as or older than the oldest residents of the street.
Electric bus wires, by contrast, can be removed and replaced relatively easily with no long-term negative impact.

Good city planning requires taking more than one issue into consideration when making important decisions. I encourage the city and Metro to rethink their decision to reject the Denny Way route for moving these houses.

-- Sherry Narens, Seattle

Bus wires are the villain in 'Houses vs. trees'

The "villain" of the story, "Houses vs. trees," is neither. Neighbors should not be expected to sacrifice a beloved, tranquil canopy of mature growth. Such leafy refuges within our city are invaluable not only to residents but to people driving through the neighborhood. For those who live there, they would come home to face the loss each and every day.

The desire to salvage these homes is also laudable. There was another option, nixed by Metro, to move the home down Denny Way. Overhead wires are replaceable. Trees, and the wonderful refreshment of a leafy canopy, are not -- at least for decades.

-- Mitzi L. Simmons, Seattle

Diversifying, staying away from oil are best practices

I would say that your page one of Pacific Northwest poster boy, Larry Strunk ["Legions of 'haves' are now the 'hads,'" Pacific Northwest magazine, June 28], was more a victim of unwise investment practices than a victim of the recession.

First he was "day-trading oil stocks" in his 401(k) -- which is speculating in my book. When that didn't work, he invested all of his 401(k) in one stock, Washington Mutual. Again, he was speculating, and he was not diversifying -- a major prudent investing tenet. He is betting on one company in one industry.

If Strunk had abided by a few basic investment rules, he would not be in the fix that he now finds himself.

-- David von Wolffersdorff, Seattle

Cruel treatment for desperate borrowers

The article "Malaysia loan sharks chain men to wall for months" [seattletimes.com, Nation & World, May 27] stated that the debts the two people owed were between $400 and $1,100. The banks wouldn't give them loans, so they went to borrow money from a loan shark.

If one is willing to pay a loan with a 40 percent interest rate, it obviously means he is desperate for money. The problem is that people lose sight of humanity when they get caught up in making money. People have this capitalistic mindset that they need more money and can never have too much.

These Malaysian loan sharks are going after the borrowers by threatening violence to get their money back. Banks are refusing to lend to "unqualified" people, when in fact most of the time those people are the ones who need the loan money more than the "qualified" ones.

How unfortunate for those people who got locked up, and how unfortunate for us all to be in a world that lets this happen.

-- Peter An, Bellingham

In hard times, rich areas shouldn't request money

OK, so the state of California is sliding into the financial toilet due to the same two-thirds voting rule that hamstrings our Legislature from fixing state funding. At the same time, the tony San Diego suburb of La Jolla is spending $700,000 on recordings of barking dogs to keep seals off the beaches ["San Diego to blast seals from beach with dog noise," seattletimes.com, Nation & World, May 23].

At least the super-wealthy burg of Medina withdrew its application for federal stimulus funds to fix a fountain. I know what kind of shovel that's ready for!

What is it with the rich? Do they just not get it?

-- Stephen Lamphear, Burien

Unrestrained bill creation will kill dollar's value

The article "Will sales of T-bills continue to flourish?" [Business, May 27] asks the question, explains that we have quadrupled our debt over the last year -- necessitating the urgent need to sell newly created Treasury bills (T-bills) -- and tries to assure us that "economists believe that the risk is low."

The deep concern revealed by Associated Press writer Martin Crutsinger is whether China will continue to buy even more U.S. T-bills and bonds. Bear in mind that China, Russia and Brazil have recently expressed the desire to establish a new international currency to replace the U.S. dollar.

If the United States continues to double or quadruple its unrestrained creation of dollars, the eventual result will be to reduce the value the dollar, and therefore T-bills, to 20 to 50 percent of what it was worth in 2008.

This administration needs to learn the fundamentals before it is too late. If it is true that 47 percent of the U.S. Treasury notes and bonds are held by foreign nations, a mass exodus may trigger the same collapse of the dollar as happened to the U.S. stock market in 2008 when the foreign investors pulled out.

-- Gerald N. Yorioka, Mill Creek

News isn't new for hardest-hit

What does [Washington Post reporter] Deneen Brown know about being poor? ["Why the poor pay more," Close-up, May 20.] Nothing in her article is news to anyone who grew up in the projects, stood in line at food banks, cheated the bus driver out of 17 cents (before the automated systems that count every penny) or stooped to stealing toilet paper from the library.

The poor have always had it harder than the rest of us. The difference is that the poor are better equipped to deal with hardship and a sour economy has nothing on them. Why are you featuring poor people now? Their problems are not new and human-services workers have long lamented the many injustices perpetuated against these people that business owners and our own government condone. By the way, not all poor people are black.

Yes, we now have some regulations against predatory lending, but we need more, and our welfare system is still in need of an overhaul. In the mid 1980s, as a working single mother earning only $7.50 per hour, I was "qualified" for just $50 in food stamp assistance -- hardly worth the seven pages of forms and verification I had to provide. And although I had medical insurance at the time, I could not afford to pay the out-of-pocket expense for the Albuterol I needed and ended up in the hospital. Yes, the poor pay more for health care!

Brown's article does hit home on one point though -- the poor have a lot of time.
Use it wisely, brothers and sisters. Arm yourself with knowledge. Learn about interest rates, banking systems and don't get comfortable. You deserve much more than a faster ride to the nearest public laundry. Work hard. Listen and learn. It's a scary world right now, but we can handle it. Been there, done that.

-- Barbara G. Caceres, Kent

Ugly building doesn't help

Development company Trammell Crow Residential blames the sluggish economy for low occupancy in its new four-story building, Circa, at Green Lake ["Green Lake bruised by building blues," page one, May 18].

But there's another reason Circa falls flat with prospective tenants: It is an ugly, unappealing box, more suited to a strip mall than Green Lake. Circa's size is not the problem. The problem is the structure's complete lack of visual appeal.

Trammell Crow spokesman Sean Hyatt calls Circa's location "iconic." Yet architecturally, Circa only takes from the Green Lake neighborhood. It gives nothing back in character or charm.

-- Jane Lotter, Seattle

High rent prices missed the mark

The stalled rentals at Circa, the new Green Lake apartment project on the Albertson's site, suffer from rents too high for the demographics of our community -- reason I cannot feel sorry for Trammell Crow Residential's experience. The rent levels at opening for many units require incomes beyond $75,000 per year to afford comfortably.

The hubris and lack of work force rent levels puzzled me from the start. Who did they imagine would pay $3,000 for a two-bedroom unit? Green Lake is a middle-class neighborhood still, and the slow rentals are not a sign of a bad economy as much as they are a market-miss in the pro forma by Trammel Crow.

Rock-star units, perhaps, but rock stars are not living in the Green Lake neighborhood.

-- Robin Landy Amadon, Seattle

Headlines collide, anger

Two items in the NWFriday section of the May 8 paper collided with each other, broke my heart and made me mad.

Nicole Brodeur's column on the huge need at local food banks broke my heart ["Brother, can you spare some food?"]. The adjacent article, "DSHS settles for $2 million," made me feel hopeless about the seemingly nonstop payments to settle lawsuits by government agencies.

When Department of Social and Health Services caseworkers and their supervisors are negligent, not only do their victims suffer, but so do all Washington citizens who need food -- or training so they can get jobs and buy food -- and who would have benefitted greatly by that $2 million.

-- Karen Richards, Redmond

Maximize stability, not profits

The likes of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and the Obama people are now saying that the economy will begin to grow in the latter part of 2009 ["Bernanke: Economy should grow again later in 2009," seattletimes.com, Business & Technology, May 5].

Isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place -- growth? How about we just let corporations achieve an economy of thrift, profitability, paying dividends and simply stabilizing themselves for the next hundred years?

We citizens are finally saving some money, like the Chinese, the Japanese and the Europeans have done for centuries. Now our government and the stock market people want us to go out and spend those savings voraciously in order to boost the economy.

The concept that we must always spend money to bolster corporate profits and see the market indexes rising in order to feel good about ourselves is illogical and wrongheaded. The purveyors of greed are now espousing that we do exactly the same thing we've been doing religiously since the 1920s by purchasing things we don't really need on credit and spending like there was no tomorrow.

So here's a modest proposal: Let's spend on the things we need and save our money for a rainy day so that corporations will have reasonable and stable profits. The concept of "maximizing profits" has been the capitalistic motto for the better part of the industrial revolution. Perhaps now, the new corporate motto should be to "maximize stability" so we might all have more time in the future to smell the roses rather than losing sleep over our 401(k)s!

-- Jerry Taylor, Elma

Obama will lead us away from greed

Greed is the quicksand that turned a once-responsible economic culture into an irresponsible one ["President Obama: big-spending conservative," Opinion, David Brooks column, April 21].

Insidious, contagious greed is destroying America morally and spiritually. It has seriously soiled the sacred marketplace values we cherish so. As individuals and as a nation, we are in great danger of losing our souls.

For the economy to be restored to a firm, solid-rock foundation, we as a society must renounce addictive greed. President Obama is the right person to lead our country out of these hard economic times. Despite the dissenting cries of many conservatives, more government oversight and regulation is required.

-- Paul L. Whiteley Sr., Louisville, Ky.

Government not exempt from frugality

The current state budget deficit of $9 billion needs to be dealt with quickly and responsibly. Increasing taxes is not the best way to fix this ["Sales tax headed for vote?" NW Friday, April 10].

Not only do tax increases slow economic growth -- which is what we need in order to get out of this recession -- but we should not be asking for Washington families to dig deeper for more money, which many cannot afford.

As the recession continues, families are cutting their spending and saving more. Government must do the same thing. Evaluate programs that are inefficient and get creative. All families and companies must work this way; no government should be exempt from this practice. We cannot afford all of our programs right now.

The Legislature must stop trying to increase the sales tax by fooling voters with heart-wrenching language. If they're not careful, enough voters will become annoyed with tax increases and could pass a law similar to California's Proposition 13 (1978). This law essentially froze the value of property at its purchase price for tax purposes with only a possible 2 percent increase annually, resulting in decreased revenue and increased inequity.

-- David Melby, Bellevue

Income tax worth it for literate, healthy community

As the Legislature finalizes our state budget, more than dollars are on the line. Our budget is being balanced on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens: at-risk children, the uninsured and the homeless.

I'm 77 and live on a bare-bones budget. Nevertheless, I would gladly put a line-item in my budget for taxes to help pay for quality schools, healthy citizens and safe homes for the homeless. We all benefit from a literate population that contributes to the welfare of our community. We all benefit when our children are healthy. We all benefit when the poor are housed in safety and dignity.

As one of seven states with no income tax, Washington must depend on sales and property taxes to fund education and human services. Doesn't it make more sense, fiscally and morally, to have another revenue source, such as an income tax? Doesn't it make more sense to have those with incomes of over $250,000 a year pay more so that we can create a community that is literate, healthy and safe?

Tax reform should be a priority for this Legislature. If not, we are mortgaging our future and that of our children.

-- Helen Donnelly Goehring, Seattle

Cut elected officials' pay

I find it an interesting and concurrently disturbing when our elected officials are seeking to have us, their constituents, accept tax increases and pay cuts while some in leadership roles are seeking, through the courts, to repeal or somehow void past legislation that we voted on and passed.

The Senate leader opted to sue us, the people she represents, using funds that could have been used elsewhere to help us, not hurt us. She is similarly seeking a way to violate our state constitution by implementing an income tax. Others are seeking to cut pay or compensation for already underpaid public employees, and cut funding for children and other vulnerable citizens.

When compared to the salary and compensation that elected officials receive, it tends to become very offensive. Not once in this session have you heard any state senator or representative propose taking a cut from their $42,000-a-year salary. It somehow seems that for 96 days of work ($437.50 a day), someone could have found a way to get along on, say, $300 a day, considering that they are paid additional compensation for lodging ($70 daily), mileage (55 cents per mile), food ($39 daily), office staff, phone and mailing expenses, and cost of living.

What about a law that cuts compensation for legislators tied into the unemployment rate? And when they are called into overtime for failing to reach agreement, then they are docked for that time.

After all, do you get paid for what you didn't get done? Nope, me either.

-- Terry Filer, Everett

Rethink higher-education priorities

In response to the University of Washington possibly cutting 1,000 jobs ["The state Senate budget: how 4 key areas would be affected," News, March 31]: enough is enough.

It is time this state became serious about dealing with the recession we are in. As far as I am concerned, no state employee should make more than the governor, who is the ultimate head of all state employees and therefore is the CEO of the state. I will specifically use UW as an example of where cuts should be made.

Is the president of UW really worth $833,000 per year? Cutting his salary to below that of the governor would save the state over $433,000 per year and yet still allow the president to live comfortably, since more than 85 percent of the population makes less than $250,000 per year.

Now, multiply this by all the institutions of higher learning in this state and how much could the state budget be reduced? Where are our leaders in this great time of need? Why is the state stooping over dollars to pick up pennies?

It is time the state stopped looking at the bottom end to cut expenses and started looking at the top end, where the real expenses are depleting this state of its funds. If my suggestions were followed, how many state jobs at the lower end of the pay scale could be saved, where the real day-to-day work is done?

-- Charlie Peters, Seattle

Mix of good and bad news is normal

I was a bit bemused by Froma Harrop's complaint about our "manic-depressive economy" ["Our manic-depressive economy," Opinion, Froma Harrop column, April 14]. Did she expect that the recovery would announce itself with heralds and bells, and that from one day to the next all the relentlessly bad news would suddenly turn universally positive?

What's happening is exactly what you'd expect to see: a mix of good and bad news that slowly becomes more encouraging overall until at some point economists, always better at forensics than prediction, reach a consensus that the recovery began six months earlier.

The gyrations of the stock market are indicative of the same thing. Doesn't anyone remember what happened when the markets began to tank? We had a number of sessions that seesawed wildly, with traders bombarded by dueling pundits, until the economy's condition finally became clear, at which point the bottom fell out. All we're seeing now is the process in reverse. Hey, Jim Cramer is probably right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

In fact, I disagree with those who so confidently predict that the recovery will be shallow and unspectacular. This recession has been far more Darwinian than most. The better-run companies cut back aggressively and survived; the stupid (Circuit City, General Motors) have or will fail.

What do you suppose will happen when well-managed companies see the tide turning, knowing that some of the competition is gone and market share is up for grabs? Probably the same thing that smart American companies have been doing in China for the past 20 years -- get into the game aggressively, knowing that some short-term losses are a small price to pay for future market penetration in a major world economy. What's more, inventories are way down and, by the same logic, surviving retailers won't want to be caught short. Both mean significant hiring.

Yes, I know there are some shoes that haven't dropped yet, and that bits of good news may be few and far between in the near term, but I think this country's going to be just fine. Clarity and finality will just have to wait.

-- Ron Philippsborn, Langley

An ironic proposal

How ironic! Sen. Patty Murray, one of the supporters of irresponsible spending, bailouts and earmarks is proposing a financial-literacy program for our high schools ["Murray banks on financial literacy," Opinion, editorial, April 11].

With the federal budget deficit now measured in trillions of dollars and the purchasing power of the dollar declining, our elected officials have thrown responsible financial management to the winds. Sen. Murray is a candidate for an economic and financial management course.

The country needs capital formation and savings, not more borrowing accompanied by a flood of inflation-causing dollars created by the Federal Reserve.

-- Walter A. Appel, Lynnwood

Stronger steps for potential borrowers

It isn't surprising, of course, to see Sen. Patty Murray and her colleagues begin by throwing a little taxpayer money -- $250 million -- at promoting appropriate courses and activities that will help people develop sound saving and investing habits ["Murray banks on financial literacy," Opinion, editorial, April 11].

A good idea. But are these steps strong enough?

Let's face it: The current economic meltdown, caused in part by overzealous borrowers and lenders encouraged by politicians painting rosy pictures of homeownership, might at least have been mitigated if potential borrowers been required to take and/or pass some fundamental tests demonstrating their financial understanding.

Think "out of the box" --like a vehicle driving test. That's the idea!

-- James P. Shenfield, Bainbridge Island

Educate financial heads, too

When I read the editorial in the April 11 edition, I was compelled to check the date at the top of the page. It would seem that an editorial that contains both the term "financial literacy" and Sen. Patty Murray's name must be a joke. With her as a financial role model, we can be sure that the current bailout programs will not end soon.

Good for Foster High School. However, a similar program on Capitol Hill and in Olympia, especially in the governor's office, would yield faster results for the citizens of our state and nation.

-- Ken Knutsen, Lopez Island

Efforts offset by modern distractions

As an executive who has taught economics and business in Seattle middle schools many times, I was glad to see The Seattle Times' editorial on financial literacy.

However, I was a bit disappointed that you did not mention the thousands of professionals and volunteers at Junior Achievement, Economics America and BusinessWeek who have been dedicated to K-12 classroom activities for decades in Washington schools for economic, financial and business literacy and knowledge.

Unfortunately, some of these efforts have been offset by the incongruent messages sent out by the influential screens of TV, movies, computers and video games.

-- Harvey Gillis, Bellevue

Don't discount successful program

For decades, Junior Achievement has been providing financial literacy programs, taught by business students and volunteers, to K-12 classrooms across America and the world.

To think that a new government program needs to be created to replicate a program that works for 100,000-plus students already in Puget Sound alone is to simply ignore a fine, established and supported institution.

The recent emphasis on tests for math, reading and writing have caused teachers, especially in elementary schools, to not place as high an emphasis on social studies as they might have otherwise. Junior Achievement programs even help students with these key skills, most especially with math taught in a practical, "I'm going to need this" way.

Students need a foundation education in many things and students who have Junior Achievement consistently score higher when administered tests on financial literacy. I'm not advocating another test, but I am advocating Junior Achievement.

I certainly don't see the need for government to advocate creating a program when an excellent one already exists. I am quite certain that Junior Achievement would be happy to show their materials to your editorial board and to Sen. Patty Murray.

-- Gail D. Yates, Seattle

A slap in the face

We are shocked, amazed and frankly angry that our two senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, voted for a tax cut that will raise the estate-tax exemption to $10 million per couple ($5 million for singles) and lower the top rate of taxation from 45 percent to 35 percent -- a tax giveaway for the superrich ["House, Senate budget plans seen as wins for Obama," seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, April 3].

The country is hurting; 5 million people have lost their jobs; homes are being foreclosed on; banks teeter on the edge of bankruptcy and taxpayer money is being used to stabilize them. The government is necessarily going deep into debt to try to salvage the economy.

Yet our senators, along with 49 others (42 Republican), have voted to forgo 91 billion in tax dollars from the richest of the rich, people who should be paying their share.

We are all being asked to sacrifice for the good of the country.

This tax giveaway to the wealthy is worthy of the previous administration and a slap in the face of the American public, their constituents in Washington state and their president, who is struggling to right the economy. Sens. Murray and Cantwell should be ashamed.

-- Rosalie and Laurence Lang, Seattle

Where is the outcry?

I have seen no mention in the paper or the news about Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray's votes on two amendments to the budget bill, not even in the "How your senator voted" section.

Both of our senators voted against Amendment 811, which would protect us against usury by the credit-card companies. It would cap the interest rates that they can charge us at 15 percent, as opposed to the outrageous 30-percent rates that we now see.

If a company cannot make money charging 15 percent interest, they should not be in business. It would also allow people in debt to have a chance to climb out of the hole that they are in, which sometimes is due to circumstances beyond their control.

Both of our senators voted for Amendment 873, which extends the tax break for billionaires on inheritances (often mislabeled by rich propagandists as the "death tax").

Why have our senators let down the working folk of this state? Why is there no mention of this anywhere in the news, no outcry?

-- Roger Burton, Bothell

Unconscionable votes

I am astounded that both our U.S. senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, have decided to give additional tax breaks to multimillionaires.

What were they thinking when they voted with all the Republicans to increase the amount that will be exempt from estate taxes to $10 million? And to reduce taxes on estates of $10 million (for a couple) from 45 percent to 35 percent? This will cost taxpayers $100 billion over the next 10 years.

Their votes are unconscionable. I am beyond stunned at this shift of the tax burden from multimillionaires onto the rest of us.

-- Carole Glickfeld, Seattle

Too easy to blame everyone involved

I want to thank Marc Ramirez for writing ["Layoff aftershocks hit WaMu neighborhood," seattletimes.com, Local News, March 30]. I am one of the former WaMu Center employees laid off in the first round at the end of January.

It brings back a lot of memories, good and bad. After six years of hard work, the last few in one of the technology groups, I found the comments section following the article to be very disappointing.

I do not expect nor ask for any sympathy from those who are upset with WaMu and the financial industry as a whole, or from any of the thousands who have also lost their jobs and are frustrated with the current state of the economy. I understand completely and am myself very frustrated by poor management decisions, ineffective leadership in the financial industry and what seems to be a detachment from the common man in Washington, D.C.

It is common for people, when they are angry and upset, to cast blame in general at whole groups of people. WaMu, AIG, Lehman, etc. ... it's easy to do. As I reflect on my own past opinions, I realize that I thought the same about the folks at Enron.

One thing that I have learned from the WaMu experience is this: People need to understand and remember that the day-to-day employees at those firms, myself included, showed up to work every day and poured our souls into trying to do the best job we could do to make our company the best it could be.

It saddens me that the regular folks at these companies have suffered and are being demonized by most in the press and Washington, D.C. These folks are our neighbors, family members and friends. These folks were not sitting in the executive boardrooms charting the direction of their company, nor were they polled by the leadership team for their input. That's just not how it works.

I, for one, salute the hard work of these folks and wish them well in their efforts to put their careers back on track and move on with their lives.

-- Brian Stout, Bothell

U.S. should accept
worldwide regulatory agency

I disagree with your editorial Thursday that our country should not accept a worldwide regulatory agency to oversee financial markets ["President Obama vs. the G20," Opinion, editorial, April 2].

We have created havoc around the world with our reckless behavior and anything less than a regulatory agency will be a paper tiger.

Frankly, I'm weary of a country with endless battles between its political parties, which lead to either no legislation, bad compromises or good legislation that can be reversed at a later time.

It's a game of chance and that's hardly the way for a modern country to survive. I would like to see our country governed by a body that seeks to do the best for all the people all the time. At least we wouldn't wind up periodically in catastrophic straits, compromising our future.

-- Erin Scarlett, Seattle

State should protect the basics

Today, a sense of security does not mean knowing we are safe from an attack by an outside force. In our current times, a sense of security means simply the basics. It means a roof over one's head, even if you do not actually own the home. It means enough to pay for utilities and food.

Basic security should mean our children have a proper education in K-12, and the opportunity for an advanced degree. In addition, basic security should mean knowing you have the security of health care and do not risk losing everything because of lack of insurance coverage.

It is simply counterintuitive for our elected officials to cut education across the board, and to curtail our state health insurance ["Hunt is on for $4B in cuts," NW Wednesday, April 1]. All of us are reeling from the economy on every level; our expectation of the future is uncertain; our concentration focused on the basics.

A message to our elected officials should include a strong suggestion that now is not the time to undermine basic security. Now is the time to put aside all the things beyond basics for the sake of our security, and the future of our ability to exist as individuals within a community.

-- Marcia Landry, Bainbridge Island

Sacred cows should be sacrificed

Why is our educational system, which is currently just above Mississippi in student funding, being further sacrificed to balance the budget? Why are years of referendums undone in one fell swoop by the ad hoc Legislature? Why do our elected government officials at all levels not take a look at these sacred cows in solving the current budget as longer term remedies?:

Liquor Control Board: Why not dismantle this entire archaic apparatus? Why can we not buy liquor at the grocery store like most other states?

Monopolistic workers' compensation: Why is this state in the insurance business? Why are we one of the few remaining states where you can only get workers' compensation from the state? Why are not the billions of dollars of reserve funds that are terribly redundant held for injured workers' available to help bail out the state now? What are their investment returns and have they been mismanaged so that we have lost money in the stock market? Let's join the rest of the country and dismantle another expensive and archaic system.

Government-employee-defined benefit pension plans: When the private sector has moved to 401(k) and 403(b) retirement programs, why are the deputy sheriffs and bus drivers working big overtime-accruing defined-benefit expenses in bloated pensions? They have made the change in California and elsewhere in the nation; why not here? Let's level the playing field and dismantle another out-of-date and expensive system.

Why are these sacred cows not on the radar screen to be sacrificed before our teachers and our children's education? Where is the debate? What are our priorities?

I, for one, am sick of the lack of public discourse on these sacred cows. The emperor has no clothes, who is that man behind the screen and what is the pink elephant doing here? Where is the public outrage?

-- Scott and Maria Strickland, Seattle

Iraq, Afghanistan wars caused economic crisis

The predictions and prognosis from many experts is that we are spiraling into a downturn that is reminiscent of the worst days of the Great Depression. Jobs are lost and eliminated nationwide at a clip that can only be described as tragic. And coupled with this are the Draconian state cuts that will impact and harm the most vulnerable among us -- children and the elderly.

As we head into this heart of economic darkness, it is stunning that one huge causal factor is consistently overlooked and minimized. It is hard, if not impossible, to find any political leader or corporate spokesperson to address the United States military budget -- more than $600 billion in fiscal 2009 and climbing -- or the catastrophic impact that two ongoing and endless wars in the Middle East have cost this great nation.

And maybe it is immoral to cast light on the economic havoc these wars have wrought on the United States without mentioning the incalculable death, destruction and genocide these military slaughters have brought to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq alone has seen more than 1.2 million people killed since March 2003. And this number does not even factor the 5 million Iraqis displaced and the hundreds of thousands maimed or ruined for life by smart bombs and other weapons of mass death. These achievements in death have come at a cost that is slowly draining the economic lifeblood of the United States. And the future does not bode well when we have a newly elected and still-popular president who sees the benefit and virtue of expanding military operations in Afghanistan.

Unchecked militarism is indeed the Siamese twin of imperialism and these unleashed juggernauts need to be brought to account if the United States is ever to return to a position of respect, admiration and economic health. By ignoring the primary culprit in our economic meltdown and focusing instead on Ponzi-scheme con men and greedy insurance executives who foolishly squander bailout support, we do ourselves, our children and the planet a grave disservice that may well lead to incalculable disaster.

-- Jim Sawyer, Edmonds

Jim Bates / The Seattle Times

Marine View Drive runs on the bridge over the gully where Saltwater State Park is located south of Des Moines. Saltwater is one of the parks being considered for closure as the state Legislature grapples with a $9 billion budget deficit.

Parks fee unfairly targets most vulnerable

Editor, The Times:

Democrats say the new parks fee is not a tax "because you could decline to pay it by checking a box on the license-renewal form" ["Would you pay $5 to keep state parks open?" page one, March 30].

By requiring that motorists opt out of a parks fee by checking a box on the vehicle registration renewals, Democrats are creating a new revenue source and unfairly targeting the very groups they rely on to justify other controversial policies: the poorly educated and non-English-speaking immigrants.

If the existing voluntary contribution option on vehicle registration forms is not providing enough funding for parks from literate, informed citizens, then the anticipated funding increase via the opt-out law must come from new "donors," right?

The most probable donors under the new law are those who cannot read the form and are not aware that it could cost them $5 less to register their vehicles. After all, when I renew my registration, I am a willing donor or abstainer and that will not change.

Covert tactics like this undermine Democrats' sentimental cries to help the most vulnerable among us. The new law may increase parks funding, but at whose expense?

-- Sonya Jones, Olympia

Increase students, cut administration instead

While my father was a hobo riding the rails during the Great Depression, he decided to attend college and graduate school because it was cheap and easy to be admitted. So in the 1940s, instead of being a child of a hobo father, I was a child of a professor father. My life was changed -- because it had been simple to go to school during the Depression.

Now the State of Washington is cutting 10,000 higher-education slots when our economy needs educated people ["Senate budget plan would rescind gains," page one, March 31]. We could avoid this by cutting the education administration budget instead of the teaching budget.

We could increase student slots by requiring each college professor to teach 15 hours a week for no raise in salary -- that's how many hours all college professors taught during the Great Depression. Research and administrative work was in addition to teaching 15 hours.

The constitution of the state of Washington says the state's highest priority is education, morally requiring us to assist students to attend college.

Let's do the education thing right -- train the teachers and scientists needed to make the discoveries and inventions that will bring our economy back to being the best in the world. Cut administration -- increase students.

-- Susan McKeehan, La Conner

Crisis caused by irresponsible spending

Nobody, but nobody, should fail to understand that the Washington state budget crisis is, in fact, not a result of the recession but the direct result of Democratic legislators and the Democratic governor's irresponsible spending the past four years. They simply created a legacy that could not be maintained.

It was the same mentality that led to the national housing bubble and collapse.

And just as taxpayers are being called upon to bail out the banks, so too will state Democrats call on the taxpayers to bail out their irresponsible spending.

Just wait and see.

-- Nick Shultz, Lake Forest Park

Leave it to the professionals

Why don't the state of Washington and other government agencies use qualified, trained CPAs and other financial planners to do the budget planning, as they are more experienced at financials then politicians who can't even balance their own checkbooks?

That is what CPAs do for a living. I ran my own business for 11 years and was successful because I listened to my CPA. They understand income versus expenses and planning ahead.

-- William L. "Bill" Brayer, Edmonds

Stop anti-public-employee sentiments

The Seattle Times' anti-public-employee sentiments were again reiterated in "A slim state budget" on March 31 [Opinion, editorial].

These comments add fittingly to the anti-union sentiments already on display in your paper during the Boeing strike and the present dissolution of U.S. automobile manufacturing. It's as if your editorial board fails to realize that a laid-off public employee or union worker is the same as a laid-off Boeing or Microsoft worker.

Ironically, the same institutions of higher education you wish to see reduced cuts to are staffed and supported entirely by state employees.

Get with it, Seattle Times. The public-employee bashing and white-versus-blue-collar rhetoric are trite and uncalled for.

-- Nate Hough-Snee, Seattle

Misguided funding for suicide prevention

Building a fence on the Aurora Bridge is a bad idea because: The fence is unlikely to prevent a significant number of suicides; $7 million of public funds for this purpose is wasteful; and a fence could greatly mar the appearance of the bridge, a historic place and a city landmark.

Of 2,115 people in King County who committed suicide from 1998 to 2007, most (45 percent) used firearms. Another 142 jumped from high places, with only 36 (1.7 percent of the total) selecting the Aurora Bridge. A fence would prevent suicides by persons using the bridge, but not those choosing other locations or other means to take their own lives.

The proposed state budget for 2009-2011 includes an additional $6,087,000 for the fence with total costs projected to be $7,458,000. This project adds very little social, mental-health or community value.

Witnesses and others affected by a bridge or any suicide attempt could be seriously traumatized by the event. No one should minimize the importance of this consideration.

However, our purpose is to encourage our legislators to redirect funding from the Aurora Bridge fence project to agencies and groups that identify and treat mental illnesses, such as severe depression and bipolar illness, that are associated with most suicide attempts. An effort such as that could potentially make a big difference in the number of suicide deaths in our community.

-- George W. Counts, Robert Vets and Peter Lawrence, Seattle

Expand the definition of "shovel ready"

For companies contracting with local jurisdictions, the last few months have been difficult. Jurisdictions have been slashing budgets, and the first cuts have come in the form of contracted services.

On Feb. 17, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a bill containing billions of dollars for infrastructure projects, passed. Overnight, thousands of contracted projects had new life breathed into them.

To accomplish the Herculean task of distributing ARRA's billions to local jurisdictions quickly, many of the funds have been distributed through existing federal and state grant-funding mechanisms. Unfortunately, ARRA funds come laden with a toxic provision: a "shovel-ready" stipulation that requires that funded projects be designed, permitted, and ready to construct.

Small jurisdictions don't design or permit projects until funding has been secured. Thus, they are ineligible for ARRA funding unless they can design and permit their projects in an unreasonably short time frame (one or two weeks).

The "shovel-ready" provision provides an unfair advantage to large, well-funded jurisdictions with the resources to design and permit projects without secured funding. What's more, the (mostly small) design firms that contract with small jurisdictions are hurting.

The ARRA's shovel-ready provision renders it a temporary approach to restoring economic vitality. Allowing jurisdictions to secure stimulus funding for design of future projects will not only preserve private-sector jobs. It will ensure a sustainable pipeline of projects ready to implement over the coming years.

-- Mark Hillinger, Seattle

Shame and gall on Capitol Hill

Although I didn't see this in or on the news, stand by for another government ripoff!
While the economy is going nowhere fast, members of Congress have given themselves a substantial pay raise.

It's hard to believe that while city, county and state agencies are downsizing and finding ways to cut employee pay and benefits, Congress has the gall to accept their automatic pay raises. It is unconscionable for members of Congress to raise their salaries while thousands of Americans are being laid off and losing their homes.

These ethically challenged members of Congress definitely do not deserve a pay raise at this crucial time of economic distress.

Can you say "shameful"?

-- Boyce Clark, Edmonds

Our "stimulating" economy
The value of work

In one more story of gloom regarding the American economy, we learn that seven executives of AIG are "entitled" to more than $3 million in bonuses that the company argues that it must uphold in order to "attract the best and the brightest talent" to their company ["AIG Bonuses: $165 million more," Times, Nation Report, March 15]. This payment goes to those who wrote trillions of dollars of credit-default swaps that protected investors from defaults on bonds backed by subprime mortgages.

So let me get this straight: The U.S. government is continuing to help a company pay its top executives bonuses and "retention pay" for doing bad business?

What I am also trying to understand is what is the value of any one person, as bright and savvy as he or she may be, to be worth that amount of money in bonuses alone (not to mention base salary)? For what do we value the human capacity to work in a given day or week of time, in any job? And where does the business world, and ultimate our society, make the call that such work in the business/financial world be valued so much higher than work in education, health care, social work the arts?

-- Cara Hazelbrook, Arlington

Two sets of rules

How does a company that has failed as abysmally as AIG owe any of it's employees a bonus? Why should they be concerned about retaining upper management?

It is as ["The Daily Show's"] Jon Stewart has so artfully revealed, we have two sets of rules in the United States: one tax rate for those with regular income, another rate for corporations and the very rich who legally use elaborate tax dodges; one set of rules for people who earn their modest bonuses, another for people whose enormous bonuses are completely detached from performance; one set of rules for people with modest investments and another for the shadowy banking industry, which uses our 401(k)s to fund the housing bubble and the stock market, which it turns out is really an enormous Ponzi scheme.

When the scheme inevitably failed, these same crooks have the audacity to demand to use millions of taxpayer dollars to pay "bonuses" to its upper management and to lobby against the interests of you and me, the taxpayers -- all the while shoveling shame on people who are struggling to pay mortgages.

Much more of this behavior and this quiet, mild-mannered housewife and mother of two kids is going to be out in the streets protesting in front of financial companies.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Congress need to be much more forceful and put a stop to this. It's time to call in the Justice Department and start investigating these shenanigans.

-- Kelly Powers, Seattle

Curious assets

The first decade of the 21st century may well become known as the beginning of The Age Of Euphemisms. Consider what has happened to the word "asset."

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "asset" as "... a valuable item that is owned ..." During the past eight years, this has evolved to become "troubled assets" and, most recently, "toxic assets."

I guess if we don't call these "toxic assets" what they really are (derivative securities that have lost all or almost all of their value), the public doesn't get the message. The money is gone. The taxpayer's money, which is used to acquire "toxic assets" in order to get them off the bank's balance sheets, will be gone as well.

As Alice said when she walked through the looking glass, "It gets curiouser and curiouser."

-- Harry B. Bosch, Silverdale

Lifestyles of the new economy

So, I am the state of Washington. I have had a good run at work and made a lot of money the past few years. My spending habits reflect my new income, so I commit to buying bigger and better stuff. Now, my job isn't going so well. Unfortunately, I like all my new stuff. Not only do I not want to give anything back, I want to keep going out and spending money on stuff I enjoy. What are my options?

A. I can maintain my lifestyle by spending all of my savings that I put aside and just hope things are better in the future.

B. I can take a generous gift from my Uncle Sam, and spend all of his money, and still maintain the lifestyle I enjoy, or ...

C. I know this sounds crazy, but maybe I could downsize my extravagant lifestyle and not spend so much money. Actually live within my means and not worry so much about a scary economy.

This should not be a complicated problem. The hard questions of where to cut are difficult to answer, but the big-picture solution should be obvious, even to our political leaders. We elected you to make hard decisions. Time to step up and earn your paychecks!

-- Todd Ray, Auburn

A Husky jobs bill

The specter of the loss of thousands of construction jobs in the Puget Sound area is looming while the state Legislature balks at giving the "OK" for a King County tax to be extended to partially fund renovation of Husky Stadium. The tax would continue, in effect, after the principal on loans for two professional, "private" stadiums are paid off. This isn't a new tax to be added on at this time of economic downturn, but an extension of an existing tax that mainly effects visitors to the area in a few years time.

The addition of 7,000 to 10,000 jobs here, right now, would allow contractors to maintain work crews that would otherwise be laid off. This is a huge impact on the state. Either the state assists these people via the jobs provided through the stadium project, or the state pays these people unemployment benefits. The 10,000 families on unemployment would produce no discretionary spending to stimulate the economy. Everyone in the state loses.

Families that have jobs retain the ability to spend on items other than necessities. This allows retail businesses to maintain employment levels and would retard the downward economic spiral we are in.

It is unconscionable and extremely shortsighted of the politicians in this state to ignore what up to 10,000 construction jobs will do for the economy. Funny, the state seems to be turning its back on the common Joe and Jane who live here at a time help is needed the most.

-- John Downing, Auburn

Ignore geologic hazards at your peril

We'll be out of luck during the next quake, tsunami or flood.

Washington is likely to stop paying for work that identifies geologic hazards and marks escape routes for people who are trying to make it to safety. Right now, the funding for dealing with geologic hazards is in danger of elimination. For a state that has been hit by tsunamis, seen floods close the interstate highways, had the sides of mountains collapse from forest clearing in landslide hazard areas - and, by the way, also had a volcano blow up and cause a right mess for a long time, not to mention killing a few people -- this is a remarkably dumb move and a cavalier approach to public safety.

Geology is underfoot everywhere, it's where we live and what we build on. We need to know what is there, how it works, and when it is dangerous. The danger and risk we face each day is made less because of the people who find and track geologic hazards and do something to make using these area less risky.

Ignoring geologic hazards is as silly as not fixing the hole in the roof because the sun is shining.

-- Holly Glaser, Mercer Island

Consider the total costs

The modern market economy has driven the current crisis in which we find ourselves because it continually fails to take in to account the total costs of any given product, whether it be energy or apples. The total costs of a product include the long-term costs of the damage done to the environment.

As we can now see, feel and smell, the long-term damages of burning fossil fuels and damming rivers for electric power literally suck the air from our lungs and take the fish from our streams.

Everyone agrees that we have reached a critical tipping point. And yet, vested interests continue to try and undermine the already decided upon outcomes of the majority.

When are we going to grow into our humanity and become the true people that we are? We have not inherited the Earth from our forbearers. We have borrowed the Earth from our children.

-- Tai Lahans, Shoreline

The earmark gophers

I see where our state's D.C. gophers are going for an earmark for $476,000 for an institute founded by Paul Allen ["Earmarks: Cantwell sends mixed signals," Local News, March 12]. Allen must have really been hit by the downturn. But kudos to Sen. Maria Cantwell for voting to strip earmarks. (That may have been the closest thing to good news in today's paper.)

Sen. Patty Murray doesn't want "bureaucrats who had never been to Walla Walla, Blaine, or Tacoma decide on federal spending for the state."

I don't suppose anyone has considered letting the voters in Walla Walla, Blaine or Tacoma decide what they really want and then pay for it themselves; or let the people in Seattle decide if they want a tunnel and pay for it. That way, they might get out of paying for the pork packages from Pocatello, Palm Beach or Punxsutawney, not to mention the huge D.C. handling fee. But that's probably too constitutional for today's politicians.

On the other hand, what other reason would there be to elect representatives to Congress if not to "gopher" the biggest share of the handouts in order to get re-elected?

-- Gary T. McGavran, Bellevue

George Widman / Associated Press (file)

In this April 6, 1983, file photo, some of an anticipated group of 10,000 unemployed wait in the steady rain for President Ronald Reagan to arrive at his hotel in Pittsburgh, Pa., as he visits the city to at the National Conference on the Dislocated Worker. The 1981-82 recession, widely considered America's worst since the Depression, is a grim marker of how bad things can get. Yet the nation's current recession could slice deeper into the U.S. economy, and if it lasts into April 2009, will be on record as the longest in postwar history.

It will be what we make it

Editor, The Times:

David Sirota's March 9 syndicated column was titled, "Somehow, 'apocalypse' seems right for the times." Balderdash. What is happening right now is not "the apocalypse." It is the ending of 20th-century America, nothing more.

Twentieth-century America was different from 19th-century America, and 21st-century America will be different from 20th-century America.

This is because the world changes.

What will 21st-century America be like? It will be like we make it.

-- David South, Redmond

Real solutions, not frivolous spending or increased taxes

I have recently read the 12 ideas from American Solutions, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's political-action group, and many of them make sense.

A payroll-tax stimulus temporary tax credit could offset 50 percent of the payroll tax. Reduce the marginal tax rate of 25 percent down to 15 percent. Reduce the business-tax rate to 12.5 percent, giving businesses more money to invest in themselves and, thus, create more jobs.

Invest in a new, expanded, electric power grid and a new air-traffic-control system to reduce delays in air travel and save passengers, employees and airlines billions of dollars per year. Abolish taxes on capital gains and the death tax.

These ideas are common sense and do not grow government, raise taxes or significantly increase spending. We need real solutions, not frivolous spending.

-- Todd Welch, Everett

Massive intervention tainted with political maneuvering

Jon Talton misses the actual cause of the stock-price decline, which worsens with every government pronouncement, in his blog ["So can this stock rally be sustained?" Sound Economy with Jon Talton, Business, March 10].

The U.S. government pushed loans on people who couldn't afford them, instead of getting out of their way so they could earn them, coerced regulated banks by inferred threat of not approving changes in their companies and mismanaged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ignoring warnings of risks while the manager ran a Ponzi-like scheme.

Now, massive intervention tainted with political maneuvering is routine.

Faced with deficit spending or worse, the printing of money, and, thus, inflation, instability of economics and political policy (with flip-flops and money spent on other than what it was approved for) and micromanaging without insisting on management performance, why would investors have the confidence needed to bet on the near future?

Some are even "going John Galt," to quote an increasingly popular phrase.

Our finite lives require protection against the initiation of physical force, which includes fraud as explained by Tara Smith in Moral Rights and Political Freedom.

People must be free to reject the dishonest and incompetent and reward the good. No one forced people to buy shares of the sloppily-run Washington Mutual, but politicians are forcing taxpayers to subsidize long-mismanaged car manufacturers.

In Canada and the U.S., we enjoy the peace and prosperity that comes from individual freedom protected by a justice system, the social system that resulted in tremendous advances in food production, medical care and weather protection.

Sadly, some ignore history, proving badly-run companies fail, governments have a poor record of choosing potential winners, politicians use their political power to force bad economics with free-lunch schemes, and control-minded regimes don't feed people.

-- Keith Sketchley, Saanich, B.C.

Bubbles and bursts

Editor, The Times:

President Obama's $75 billion housing-rescue plan calls for the government to bail out homeowners and interject itself into loan-modification negotiations between loaner and borrower. But, propping up housing prices by bailing out foreclosures is just government meddling in the marketplace and, therefore, won't work.

If a borrower can pay $1,000 per month, but the bank will only modify the existing mortgage down to $1,500 per month, the feds will come in and donate the $500 difference. But, this amounts to a price control -- a price floor on home values.

Economics teaches us that price controls, whether price floors or price caps, shrink the overall economic pie by misallocating resources. This is Economics 101. Thoughtful people should always oppose price controls on principle because they make us poorer.
Contrary to popular belief, the cause of the current housing crisis is big government and overregulation.

The Federal Reserve System artificially holds down interest rates. This, in turn, subsidizes more loans than the market would naturally bear if the Federal Reserve Bank were not there. The federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires bankers to give risky loans to seek a good federal rating.

These two things are examples of how government regulation and meddling artificially subsidizes risk and over-loaning, causing housing bubbles and their corresponding bursts.

Let foreclosures happen and housing values drop and let people move into rental housing, allowing the rental market to flourish while the housing market corrects itself.
Prices need to freely fluctuate -- even to obscenely low points -- for the free market to work. Reregulating only throws gas on the fire.

-- Jeff Jared, Kirkland

Reducing tax regressivity

The state government's tax-revenue situation is critical, posing huge reductions in programs for Washington state residents. Citizens of this state face dire options: a dramatic cut in government services or a change in the way we finance government.

Our plight is multiplied by our current-tax structure, which is greatly impacted by cyclical-economic fluctuations. Why? Because we have a very unbalanced state- and local government-taxing structure with an extraordinary dependence on sales-type taxes.

Beyond sales tax on consumer purchases, this state levies a business and occupations (B&O) tax that is essentially a sales tax on business revenues in Washington state.
In economic downturns, this type of tax-revenue structure always has huge downturns in revenue.

What are the options? It is time to review the work of the special-tax commission established by former Gov. Gary Locke and chaired by Bill Gates Sr. This thoughtful body recommended key changes in our tax structure, including the introduction of a state-income tax and reductions in sales and B&O taxes.

Almost every state in the United States has a state-income tax. The Gates Commission clearly showed that this tax would reduce the regressivity of taxes in Washington state.
It is time to resurrect the work of this distinguished commission, as we address the current state- and local government-fiscal crisis.

-- William Beyers, Seattle

Giving grocery stores control of hard liquor

Last week Gov. Christine Gregoire spoke about consolidating an estimated 50 schools -- those with fewer than 150 students ["Streamlining discussion starts," Local News, Feb. 12].

She also said, "It's time for us to see a new path forward." Well, how about this new path forward: closing state-liquor stores and allowing grocery stores to handle hard-liquor sales, as is the current mode of operation for two thirds of the states in this country.

According to the Washington State Liquor Control Board Web site, there are 313 state-liquor stores. For argument's sake, let's say there are three state employees per store with the cost to the state of around $40,000 per employee (factor in wages, benefits, social security, workman's compensation, etc.). This amounts to more than $37.6 million per year.

Also, factor in lease rent and expenses of at least $1,500 per store for another $5.6 million per year. This totals at least $43 million of state expenses that could be handled by retail outlets.

Washington is one of only 17 states which still maintain control over the sale of distilled liquors. If this plan were adopted, the state would still have the ability to influence pricing and collect revenue on alcohol, while saving millions of dollars on expenses.

-- Ben Kromm, Pullman

Voting with their dollar

It was a pleasant change to read your article, "Small way to help small business" [page one, Feb. 17]. I feel like most things I read these days are about problems, not the solutions an everyday person could assimilate into their daily lives.

Buying local is so easy!

I live in Bellingham and love to be able to walk down to the local bakery or farmers market to get my food. Not only am I giving back to the community; when I buy local I have more of an idea what I'm getting. There are no hidden ecological costs because there is no transport from Chile or anywhere else and no, or very few, worries about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) when your food is coming from local farms and dedicated businesses.

This is such an important message to get out to the masses not only to keep small businesses afloat, but also to possibly butt out the huge Walmart-type corporations that seem to have taken over in the past couple of decades. I am so glad to see smaller communities are not only taking this economic crisis in their own hands, but voting with their dollar.

Thank you for your solution-oriented article. It was a nice pick-me-up amid all of the morbid news these days.

-- Brynn Hall, Bellingham

Place moratorium on foreclosures

Americans should demand a national moratorium on foreclosures along with rent controls on apartments.

Former President Clinton completed the deregulation of commercial banks in 1999 and they went on a rampage of risky investments and speculation. They sold the fiction of free money to an American public raised on the promise of homeownership and encouraged to equate patriotism with consumption in a post-911 world. The inflationary housing market boomed. Banks and brokers made billions.

Now the banker/broker-generated bubble has burst but there are no plans to tax their billions or hold these predators accountable. Instead, the federal government sends them billions more.

And American homeowners facing foreclosure? Just like New Orleans, no one is coming, except the sheriff.

Homeowners have been tricked by predatory lenders, broken by hospital bills, punished for being laid off, forced into bankruptcy and tarnished for lacking virtue sufficient to carry the debt.

The banker/broker economy based on fictitious financial production is imploding. It wasn't created by the American homeowner; no stimulus package can heal it. People should get to stay in their home as we figure out how to create a new economy that actually produces tangible products of social benefit.

-- Dan Leahy

Pay cuts should come first

Wow, the university system is in a financial crisis and is talking about job cuts ["UW braces for 600 layoffs," Local News, Feb. 10]. What bothers me most is the University of Washington gave itself a huge pay raise a year or two ago and there was not one mention of pay cuts to try and reduce the number of job cuts.

Why is it that the president of the university makes enough money to support two to three families and doesn't want to make a sacrifice to help others in need?

UW claimed the pay raise was necessary to get the best people for the job. How many times have we heard this same rhetoric from presidents of corporations?

The university is just as guilty as Wall Street for fostering the belief that it is OK if you can justify it. When does it stop? When will people wake up and realize it is not OK?

Cutting jobs is not the answer when pay cuts can be made and people can keep their jobs.

-- Jeff Gibbon, Seattle

Making an athletic exception

I must admit I am really in shock about what I read in your paper concerning University of Washington layoffs in this time of stimulus packages and economic debt.

On the front page of the Local News section in the Feb. 10 paper, the headline reads: "UW preparing for 600 layoffs."

Then, on the front page of the Sports section, there is an article about the UW's new offensive-line coordinator leaving for the Oakland Raiders, even though he was offered, and I am sure accepted, a $350,000 per year salary.

So here we are: Athletic coaches making enough to give five workers a decent wage and the UW laying off employees.

What ever happened to education? Those being laid off may not be instructors or professors, but I am sure their work adds to the experience of a UW education.

I think maybe our new president and elected officials ought to start looking at college coaches' wages and put a cap on them as they did the CEOs.

-- Jack Schultz, Bellevue

Perpetuating problems

The payday-lending industry has put Washington state at the top of its list of states that could have negative, regulatory events this year. This means they are worried Washington will pass meaningful regulations.

Please vote yes on House Bill 1073 and Senate Bill 5150 to extend the 36 percent interest cap, producing a reasonable loan product without excessive interest rates.

Too many of our citizens believe a payday loan will solve their problems. They do not realize it may be the start of many more problems.

Protect them.

-- John Derrig, Bellevue

Ellen M. Banner / The Seattle Times

Sound Transit light-rail trains sit on the tracks that run down Martin Luther King Jr. Way South in Seattle. Developers are interested in building near light-rail stations.

House bill 1490

Editor, The Times;

Portland got it right; Washington can too.

I was born and raised in Seattle, but I've also had a taste of living in Portland. Rep. Sharon Nelson, D-Maury Island., is absolutely right that Washington needs to promote the transit-oriented development Portland consciously fostered [ "Provide incentives for cities, residents to avoid sprawl," Sharon Nelson guest column, Feb. 5].

The communities that grew around Portland's MAX light-rail stations are forward-looking, sustainable and intelligent neighborhoods -- smart growth.

With the challenges of the 21st century facing us, Washington state must work to foster the same types of communities around our new light-rail lines. We can't wait "for haphazard growth and then [try] to fix it" because we don't have time to mess it up.

Seattle is expecting upward of 1.3 million new residents by 2030. Allowing growth to keep sprawling outward will simply increase traffic congestion, long commutes and dependence on oil, which are already crippling our region.

Developers are already making moves to build around Sound Transit's new light-rail stations. If they miss the mark, we all lose out.

I have already called my representatives asking them to support House Bill 1490, which
would develop smart growth. I hope everyone reading this will do the same.

-- Nicole Forbes, Seattle

Deserving kudos, not complaints

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the media have missed an opportunity with the massive road-construction activities announced to begin on Monday.

First, they're late with the news. It should have been out weeks ago to allow drivers to react.

But more importantly, the entire emphasis is negative, warning the driving public of disrupted travel and commute problems on apparently all of the local arterials. While this is certainly important, why aren't they taking advantage of the opportunity to tout the jobs created by this work, the improvements to transportation infrastructure and the dollar impact to the community -- all exclusive of the "stimulus package" endlessly debated in the other Washington.

We, in Washington state, are actually putting our money where our mouth is, starting Monday apparently, while Congress continues to debate some of the very same kind of job-creating programs.

While our politicians dither and disagree, we are actually doing something constructive. We ought to emphasize this and get kudos for our efforts.

-- Paul Beckman, Ravensdale

Take a reality check

Washington state Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, is proposing, under Senate Bill 5875, to enlarge the Convention Center in Seattle. He represents Seattle in the Senate, but I think someone should double check because it looks like he is from another planet.

The state is draining money from the poor, health care, schools and many beneficial programs to help cover the huge debt this state faces. Washingtonians hope that they elect people who are aware of the needs of the people and the state.

Apparently this is not a goal of Sen. Murray.

We can go a long time without enlarging the Convention Center; we need to wait until we get out of the financial crisis we are currently facing.

Sen. Murray, take a reality check and save yourself the embarrassment of presenting Senate Bill 5875.

-- Joan Blackwood, Belfair

A huge, empty room

Most economists agree that when we get through this ever-worsening recession, the new economy will be run significantly different from the previous cut-and-spend Bush policies that left us in this mess.

We'll be paying for years.

Just as the current crop of huge convention centers didn't exist a few decades ago, there's no reason to believe the next economy will have any need for them. With the glut of new centers nationwide and businesses cutting their expenses to the bone, the decline in convention attendance will certainly only continue.

Why not spend $766 million employing responsible homeless people to maintain the downtown core, keeping sidewalks, trash cans and flower beds tidy? These people in need would have enough income to buy a home and make a real contribution to our city.

A beautiful and clean city that takes care of its citizens will certainly do more to draw visitors than a huge, empty room.

-- David Wright, Seattle

Casualty of the Gregoire budget

While the current recession will claim many casualties, Washington State Parks shouldn't be among them. With more than 6 million visitations each year, our state parks provide close-to-home recreation accessible to people of all income levels.

It is baffling then that our governor is instructing the state Parks Commission to liquidate 13 parks. Why should these recreational gems pay the price for the governor and Legislature's reckless spending of the past four years?

Now, I understand the mandate to move parks that don't represent statewide significance to other government agencies, such as city or county parks departments. But, many local governments don't have the money to manage them. And many of the slated parks for liquidation do, in fact, have statewide significance: Osoyoos Lake and Fort Okanagan are the only two state parks in the Okanogan Valley, a desert-steppe community of immense biological diversity and rife with history (fur trade and the historic Caribou route).

It's ironic that in the worst economic times since the Great Depression Gov. Christine Gregoire is closing state parks. During the Great Depression, we increased our inventory of parks.

And it's ironic, too, that Osoyoos, whose full name is Osoyoos Lake State Veteran's Memorial Park because some of its land was donated by the American Legion -- and now houses a plaque donated by veterans as a memorial to all veterans who served our country -- is about to be a casualty of the Gregoire budget. What a way to honor our veterans and rest of the citizens of Washington state.

-- Craig Romano, Mount Vernon

Benefit one, benefit all

The business community's opposition to an increase in the weekly benefit amount for unemployment insurance doesn't make sense. Unemployed Washington citizens will be able to spend more to support the very businesses opposing this increase.

The proposed modest increase makes sense at this time and will benefit everyone.

-- John Tirpak, Seattle

Lower tax rates means more jobs

When times are difficult, there's no need to exaggerate the pain or make suggestions that will cause more problems ["Recovery requires stimulated senators," editorial, Feb. 2].

Your exaggeration was to say "gross domestic product shrank 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of last year." That figure is annualized, so it's closer to 1 percent.

Your solution to have the government spend money is also debatable. Maybe it feels good to have somebody do something, but government spending must be paid in higher taxes, borrowing rates or inflation. These costs are more diffuse than publicized spending, but they are indeed costly.

When you say, "tax cuts alone don't create jobs," it is true: Jobs are created when companies offer jobs and people fill them. Period. When corporate and individual tax rates are higher, you get fewer positions and fewer applicants. Conversely, when tax rates are lower, you get more jobs.

Government programs only produce jobs by taking away from somewhere else -- somewhere that produces jobs.

The economy is still larger than it was a year ago, then the largest in history. The economy will pull back as we become more careful with our spending like in prior recessions. Then it will overtake itself again.

Help our president succeed by letting our people do their thing.

-- Brian Watkins, Bellevue

Invest or save, don't spend

Any stimulus should use our children's money on sound investments only. If we don't have enough good investments that are ready to start right away, then we shouldn't spend the money.

We need to be willing to cope with the mess our generation has created. It would be a tragedy to use the money for tax cuts to enable people to buy flat-screen TVs from foreign companies, just so a U.S. retailer can get a 5 percent cut.

-- Scott Flagg, Kirkland

A wagon on the edge of a cliff

When we vote for our elected officials, many of us vote bipartisan -- we vote for the person best suited for the job. We vote for the person we feel will best represent to the government our needs, ideals and interests.

The majority of the country has now elected a Democratic president. Many crossed party lines because they felt the Democratic candidate would best represent what they needed from their country.

Our country is in crisis. It is a station wagon loaded with families hanging over the edge of a cliff. This is not a partisan problem.

We need a team of leaders to join forces and navigate this wagon back to safety. We, in the wagon, don't care who saves us; we desperately need help and we need it now.

When I see that every single Republican in Congress voted against the stimulus package that the President has blessed, I see a game going on. It is hard to imagine that every single Republican lawmaker truly felt this package was so bad that they could not vote for it.

Are their loyalties really to the people who elected them and whom they serve? Or, are they to the Republican Party?

Are our Republican lawmakers going to spend the next four years plotting for a Republican victory, or are they going to serve the people who need them now?

I encourage you all to write to your Republican leaders and insist that they put down their partisan swords and, instead, roll up their sleeves and work on the task at hand.

Ask them to join the governmental team that will pull our families back to solid ground. Ask them now.

-- Lynne Robinson, Bellevue

Calls for saving, not just spending

As the economy worsens, individuals see the wisdom of curtailing spending to the essentials and boosting payments to existing credit card debt and then to savings.

At the same time, our federal government continues to ratchet up spending trillions to "jump-start the economy." These trillions, however, are creating more debt for individuals in our collective society. How can we, as taxpayers, logically justify both courses?

We should be in support of activities that lead to long-term solutions for our economy. The most obvious of these is to create climates where personal savings are rewarded. If we, as Americans, built up substantial savings, we would be able to responsibly purchase products to drive the economy. We would be able to do so largely without the availability of credit, which has become so scarce.

If we had these savings, we would be able to withstand problems, such as a temporary job loss, without defaulting our mortgage.

To the extent that the money the feds are doling out is addressing national infrastructure, these activities are acceptable. But more importantly, lets not spend any money that does not directly lead to jobs or which does not encourage personal savings.

-- Mark Hamp, Lynnwood

Check it twice, don't act fast

There was an article in The Times telling of five tunnels on a hiking and cycling trail closing for lack of repair funds ["5 biking, hiking tunnels closed on Snoqualmie Pass," page one, Jan. 31]. The article said they were hoping for funds from the stimulus package. Is this not greedy? Is this "stimulus"?

Similarly, an article about the state Legislature recently expressed the same idea: The stimulus package will bail us out of every desired program's budget shortfall.

Isn't this greed, too, just like the CEOs'?

I don't want my grandchildren paying for today's greed.

Equally as important, liberals are using the short-term crisis as a means of getting more government control of the economy. This is called "socialism." Socialism has never shown itself to equal free-enterprise capitalism in creating jobs and improving the standard of living.

I am old enough to remember the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and other New Deal programs. They helped a few individuals, but never brought us out of the Depression. It took WWII to do that.

We are told we must act quickly to pass this bill. However, this is merely a transparent effort to keep us from looking closely at each part of the bill to see which items will provide stimulus and which are liberal programs.

My grandchildren will be saddled with a huge debt on top of living in a socialist state. I want neither for them. I want them to have the same opportunities that I have had.

-- Henry Kroeger, Redmond

No place for political "wish lists"

Perhaps Dwight D. Eisenhower was correct when he said, "There are a number of things wrong with Washington. One of them is that everyone is too far from home."

According to the Jan. 28 article in The Wall Street Journal, "A 40 year wish list," the $825 billion stimulus bill proposed by Congress has only $90 billion designated "for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus." If I understand the math correctly, that comes to about 10.9 percent of the tax money going to actual "stimulus."

The article continues saying "billions will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as 'ineffective' or unable to pass basic financial audits." Why would we want that?

How can Congress expect banks, Wall Street, or any other entity to be "transparent" if they are unwilling to be so themselves? Are they going to ignore American citizens who detest the fact that previous tax money was spent without sufficient accountability?

Should Congress pass this additional stimulus bill, let it be a clean bill — one free from any other attachments -- with their "wish lists" compiled in some other politically strategized bill.

This would make the decisions of Congress more transparent to American citizens and provide constituents a more transparent record for future elections.

-- Michael Nord, Bremerton

Tax on Internet sales: possible plan B

I find it interesting that, with all the bad economic news, two Northwest-based businesses are doing well. Both Amazon and Nike reported 9 percent growth in the last quarter.

Could it be that Internet sales, the reason noted for the strong profits of both companies, are the way out of this mess? If our government were to tax those sales, it would provide a huge source of revenue for its recovery program.

-- Alan Moen, Entiat

Seattle Times File, 1930s

Hooverville in Seattle, 1930s.

Gloomy headlines, gloomier country

Editor, The Times:

Every day I read your headlines and wonder why the media can't be a little more positive about the world and its happenings. When people see headlines such as "Double Whammy" [Times, page one, Jan. 29] and "Depression-era wisdom: How they survived" [page one, Jan. 28], all it does is perpetuate fear, causing people to feel even worse about the situation and spend even less because all they see is how bad things are.

Will this help our economy? No. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Spreading fear will not help this country recover from economic distress.

Can't you put these stories in a less prominent position? There is so little positive news these days; your headlines are only making it worse.

-- Barb White, Shoreline

Gritting their teeth in frustration

Bankers and CEOs put the country in the financial mess we're in. Now we, the people, are expected to pay to fix it?

I'd be willing to do my part if the guys who caused the problem were held accountable. Some should be in jail, some should repay money and anyone that was involved should not be given new stimulus money to oversee.

Is it any wonder Americans are gritting their teeth in frustration about the job losses, businesses closing and cost of living going up? Friends of mine who had a retirement plan are now in the same boat I'm in, counting on Social Security not to be bankrupt in five years.

-- Marci Johnson, Renton

GOP can't take the credit

Rush Limbaugh has won. Not a single GOP representative voted for the Democratic stimulus package. Limbaugh has now famously stated that he hopes for nothing but failure for the Obama administration ["Limbaugh: the jeers of a clown," Leonard Pitts Jr., syndicated columnist, Jan. 25]. So much for "loyal opposition."

The GOP, including the Eastside's Rep. Dave Reichert, considers their 100 percent party-line vote a badge of honor, but with it, their entire fortune for the 2010 elections is based on the total failure of the package. Should the economy improve, they can take not even bipartisan credit.

So in effect, by their party-line vote, the Republican Party is literally hoping that the economy gets worse. It puts them squarely behind the enlightened leadership of their standard-bearer, Rush Limbaugh.

-- Brian Gix, Seattle

Tired of constant whining

I am really getting tired of listening to the Republicans whine about President Obama's economic-recovery plan. Here are a couple of reasons why.

First, this isn't Obama's plan. This is a plan put together by the world's top economic minds: Timothy Geithner, Paul Volcker, Peter Orszag and Lawrence Summers, to name a few. When they were selected for their respective posts, they were heralded by Democrats and Republicans both for their intellect and insight on economic matters.

These people, who have forgotten more about the subject of economics than Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, and the other GOP House members combined know, have studied the situation and put together a bold and well-thought-out plan to turn this nation's economy around.

This brings me to the second reason I am so tired of the GOP's constant whining. Why would the very same people who got us into this mess think anyone really cares about their plan to get us out of it?

-- Randy Carl, Kent

Parasites in power

In these times of regulation, government intervention in the markets, creation of a universal health-care system and now Uncle Sam as the banker of last resort, it would do us good to remember the words of Karl Marx in "The process of capitalist production as a whole":

"The credit system, which has its focus in the so-called national banks and the big-money lenders and usurers surrounding them, constitutes enormous centralization, and gives this class of parasites the fabulous power, not only to periodically despoil industrial capitalists, but also to interfere in actual production in a most dangerous manner -- and this gang knows nothing about production and has nothing to do with it."

-- Stavros Birkolopulos, Seattle

Slipping on icy jingoism

Your editorial ["Newspaper ownership matters in a democracy," The Democracy Papers, Jan. 27] declared, "The $250 million loan by billionaire Carlos Slim to The New York Times Co. is said to be innocent of any motive of influencing U.S. news and opinion." I imagine you are referring to the ideal of impartial journalism. And yet, many journalists have crossed the line into the entertainment domain (colorful Rush Limbaugh and Chris Matthews come to mind).

Are these wealthy journalists considered to be capitalists with loyalties to a political party, similar to the criticism you hurl at Carlos Slim? When Rupert Murdoch (reportedly holding assets worth some $8 billion) bought the New York Post, Fox News and many more, did you raise similar alarm?

Careful, you could be slipping on icy jingoism.

Your editorial concludes, "The New York Times is not just a company, but an institution." This could be true, but the U.S. Treasury has not refused foreign investments from China, Japan, the U.K., Brazil, oil exporters or even Russia. When the U.S. Treasury accepts investments from other nations and wealthy individuals, why shouldn't The New York Times do the same?

Our beloved Constitution sets forth the law of the land, but does not establish any "news institution." Come to think of it, the Constitution does not establish any "capitalist company" either.

With the recent announcement about The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, your sentimentality for newspapers is understandable. But does the ownership of The New York Times rise to the level of national pride?

We do live in a global economy these days. This global economy is not established in the Constitution either.

-- Richard Morris, Redmond

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

President Obama walks to a podium to make a statement to the news media after meeting with Republicans in the House of Representatives Tuesday. Obama was on Capitol Hill working to gain support from Republicans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, the $825 billion economic-recovery package proposed by House Democrats.

Editor, The Times:

The huge stimulus bill is packed with items that appear to have no stimulus properties at all, except to help politicians get re-elected.

Here are just a few of many, many pork-barrel projects:

-- $44 million for construction, repair and improvements at U.S. Department of Agriculture facilities;

-- $209 million for work on deferred maintenance at Agricultural Research Service facilities;

-- $245 million for maintaining and modernizing the IT system of the Farm Service Agency;

-- $50 million for "watershed rehabilitation";

-- $2.7 billion for rural-water and waste-disposal direct loans;

-- $1 billion for "periodic censuses and programs";

-- $650 million for digital-to-analog converter box program;

-- $624 million for Navy operation and maintenance; and

-- $79 billion in education funds for states.

I could have made three to four pages of items similar to these. I am personally against the bill because I don't believe in large government. But how can anyone see this as a stimulus? It is a waste of money -- borrowed money.

I have asked our senators to explain each line item. Let's see if they do that.

-- Todd Welch, Everett

Let the grown-ups fix the mess

I listened with bemusement as Republican members of Congress, after meeting with President Obama, continued to try and derail the economic recovery of this country. Urging us to continue down the path of "trickle-down" economics, rewarding the "haves" while ignoring all the rest of us, and not quickly repairing the breaches in the network of needed economic regulation and protection was very thoroughly repudiated at the polls last November. Why do they now think they should have veto power over our future?

If House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and crew have no new ideas and cannot bring any fresh thinking to the table, they should have the grace to get out of the way and let the grown-ups fix the mess they've made.

The bill of goods they have been selling since 1996 is stale and, even worse, completely wrong. Just take a look at the mess Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House, former White House adviser Karl Rove, former President Bush and others have left us.

What part of defeat didn't they understand?

-- Judy Porterfield, Seattle

A case of overkill

I know that most of Congress feels they cannot spend enough on the 2009 stimulus package and they are in a rush to get it out. The big push is to create jobs and personal spending.

President Obama said it will create 3 million jobs. Well, I am little confused by what he and Congress are doing and how they are trying to slice up the pie.

If they are trying to help out Americans, my simple calculations show that the $800 billion or more they want to spend can provide $40,000 in income to 12 million Americans for two years. This would really help out those who have lost their jobs in this recession.

However, it seems Congress is determined to distribute this money to everyone except those who need it. Did you know between the 2008 and 2009 stimulus packages, Congress will have spent enough money to give 48 million Americans $40,000 for one year? Does this strike anybody as a case of overkill?

How many people have been laid off? Not 12 million -- not even half. Is anybody crunching the numbers?

Oh, and the price tag to you, the average taxpayer, is roughly $12,000. I think it is time we start paying attention to what these amateurs are doing. I know I can't afford to blow $12,000 without some serious consideration.

Obama and Congress need to slow down and give due consideration to what they are doing. Right now, Washington hasn't the slightest idea as to what this money will do and where it is really going. Need evidence? Look at the 2008 stimulus package. Anybody know where all the money went? Anybody know what good it did? Enough said.

-- Ron Papcun, Bonney Lake

Landing in the landfill

As our current government looks to stimulate the economy with billions of borrowed dollars, there is significant possibility of failure. This possible failure should be seen as a challenge to the American people. We must ask not what our government can do to fix the situation, but what we the people can do to help our economy.

A change that we need to make is in our consumerism mentality.

It is not that we consume, but what and how we consume that is bad. We must move away from buying the cheap and short-lived items that crowd store shelves and then landfills, to fewer, long-lasting items.

We are depleting our natural resources to manufacture these goods and then using them to turn the Earth into one large and expensive landfill. By consuming so many cheap and disposable items, we are not only spending too much money, but we are spending this money on things that we just turn around and throw out soon after purchase.

Buying smart will not only help save money, it will help conserve our planet.

-- Bryn Fluharty, Seattle

Microcredit lending lends a hand

The current economic crisis is caused by a lack of credit. Credit allows business to move through buying, selling, paying wages and investing.

Look at the poor. They always lack credit, not able to get loans. For the poor, it is always hard to move ahead.

But, now they can.

The new possibility is microcredit lending ["Focus U.S. aid on the poorest," Jan 27, guest commentary]. Microlending is providing small loans to people of low income. Small loans, together with the right support, enables these people to have better repayment rates than standard bank borrowers.

Ten years ago, there were 8 million microcredit loans. Now, more than 100 million poor people have received these small loans. This has created an explosion of economic activity -- 100 million families have the ability to work themselves out of poverty.

Microcredit lending works. Muhammad Yunus received the Nobel Peace Prize for creating, supporting and proving the effectiveness of microcredit lending.

It is time for the United States to support an effective program. As the new Obama administration reviews the U.S. foreign aid program, it should beef up support for microcredit lending. Money is tight. Times are tough. Let's do what works.

-- Ronald Borovec, Bothell

An inexcusable embarrassment

Thank you to The Times for the article on the 93-year-old man in Michigan who froze to death because his heat had been turned off for not paying his bill. We humans have been around for about 200,000 years now with this wonderful brain that enables us, for the first time in the 1-billion-year history of multicellular life, to meet all of our survival needs without competing and killing each other for them.

I think it's about time we took this new brain for a spin.

Maybe we can establish a national holiday of shame for allowing our fellow humans to die from a lack of basic necessities in the name of keeping a tidy profit for the already overfed. This is taking the spirit of competitive commerce to the obscene extreme.

This is my country and I love it, but I find this event inexcusably embarrassing. We are better than this. Even in this time of crisis, it has to be possible for our people not to die like this.

-- Harold Pettus, Everett

Tail-wagging corporations

When will our politicians get a backbone?

This recent string of bailouts is due to big corporations -- American International Group (AIG), Chrysler, General Motors (GM), etc. -- sending their CEOs and lobbyists to D.C. to tell Congress that America can't afford their company to fold.

And whether it is because of pocket lining or lack of judgment, Capitol Hill keeps granting bailouts.

This is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

If I were in Congress and a CEO came before my committee hearing telling me how America can't afford to live without their company, I would stand up, look this corporate exec in the eye and firmly say:

"Apparently you are confused, mister CEO. It's not that we can't afford for you to close, but rather due to your miss management, you cannot afford to stay open. Now it seems that you may have got lost because the bankruptcy department is down the hall on the left."

-- Chad Pelesky, Lakewood

Tax cuts cut corners

Republicans should know people who are losing their jobs and homes don't need a tax cut. They need jobs and homes.

-- Fred LaMotte, Steilacoom

Greed furthered by secularization

Greed on Wall Street and Main Street are repeatedly being cited as the reason for our financial-system meltdown and resultant recession. Greed is not the problem, but only a symptom of the overall breakdown of morality in much of our society.

This breakdown has coincided with the assault on Christianity by secularists and activist judges, resulting in the diminishment of religion in the public arena.

George Washington, the father of our country, said in his farewell address, "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports and let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."

John Adams, another Founding Father and our second president, stated that "morality and religion are essential for a democratic government to endure."

Greed is not the only symptom manifested by the loss of our moral compass. The three-fastest-growing industries in America are gambling, prostitution and illegal drugs.

Ann Graham, Billy Graham's daughter, was asked why God had turned his back on us. Her answer: "He didn't turn his back on us; we walked away from him."

The secular progressives have succeeded in taking prayer out of our schools. They are determined to see "In God We Trust" removed from our currency, "so help me God" removed from our oaths of office and "under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. They would also like to see the "Ten Commandments" chiseled off the walls of our public institutions.

The Christians founders who formed this nation and built tolerance into our Bill of Rights ironically are not being extended the same consideration from those who came later into our society. If we want to reverse further breakdown of morality we must get back to our religious roots, speak out and stand firm against the assault by the liberal progressives and their activist judges.

-- Robert Johnston, Camano Island

John Lok / The Seattle Times

Microsoft announced last week the company will cut 5,000 jobs in the next 18 months. At far right is the West Campus, which is under construction.

Editor, The Times:

Ditto to The Seattle Times editorial about Microsoft's layoffs ["Microsoft's layoffs: challenge, opportunity," Jan. 24]. Microsoft was an innovative Northwest company that took a small idea, "software," and made it into a big idea.

We need more innovative new industries that can make this happen, such as the solar-power industry. I know it well; I am a solar-energy inventor.

Like it or not, most solar-energy inventions take 20 years to develop before hitting the market. What investors today call "seed capital," is really "developmental capital" after the inventor has spent 20 years trying to develop their product.

There is a gap in investment capital between "proof of commercial market" and the patent issued, at least when it comes to renewable energy. Gone are the days when Nikola Tesla would invent alternating current (AC) systems and Westinghouse Electric Company would invest.

Today, what investors call "seed capital" isn't really seed capital at all. They don't want to take the risk. It is the burden of the investor to come up with $10 million development plans to raise $10 million in "seed capital."

We have numerous solar inventions sitting idle; nothing is going to happen unless investors change their attitudes.

If solar technology were fully developed, we could employ people, giving inventions a "Made in Washington state" stamp, not "Made in China."

-- Martin Nix, Seattle

Taxpayers are smart, tax breaks are smarter

It's a huge stretch, but let's assume I am rich and receive a $50,000 tax cut. What would I do with the money?

Perhaps, I'd add another extra bedroom to my mansion, buy new cars for my granddaughters or upgrade my yacht. If feeling generous, I might contribute to the local food bank or charities helping victims of recent-extreme weather. Otherwise, I'd invest in businesses (stocks, bonds, etc.) or just put the money in the bank and make it available for loans. In other words, I'd stimulate the economy.

The decisions of the not-rich may be of a different magnitude, but surely they've become better spenders over the past year or so.

How would the government spend the money if there was no tax cut? Losing it seems to be popular these days. Paying the salaries of the bureaucrats who lost money, rewarding businesses and home buyers for making bad decisions, giving benefits to illegal immigrants, doling it out to the states for projects the states don't want badly enough to pay for themselves, or beefing up the earmark for the sausage museum in Porkytown, Ill., are all possibilities.

God only knows what else the lobbyists, campaign contributors and unions soak us for. Perhaps, a small fraction might actually do some good.

Those who think government spends money more wisely than most taxpayers are likely the same folks who think taxes on businesses don't get passed on to consumers.

-- Gary McGavran, Bellevue

Taxes fuel the flame

How could you even publish such a misinformed idea as Ron Sher's opinion piece about boosting our gas tax ["A perfect time to boost the gas tax," guest commentary, Jan. 16]? Why can't people get it that our economy works best when the government lets us spend our own money instead of thinking that the government spends it better? What was this guy thinking?

People are losing their jobs right and left -- my own personal savings has been practically wiped out -- people are losing their homes and the economy is on a downward path that seems to have no end in sight.

Raising taxes on anything right now is like throwing gas on a fire. I noticed that Sher is a pretty successful businessman. How could he be so insensitive at the same time? Raising gas taxes? You have got to be kidding me.

-- Robert Rudd, Lynnwood

No different from a private investor

I agree with Danny Westneat's general premise; at first glance the bank's behavior seems quite objectionable ["Bailout trickles up, not down," column, Jan. 14]. However, I do have two main points to make.

The vendors who have agreed to delay payment are probably taking a "futures contract" on the aforementioned Pam Pentz' ability to pay eventually. But exactly how long will they wait? How much in late payment fees might they ultimately require? When will they sue if payment is not forthcoming after a certain extended period of time?

Eventually, if she cannot pay, each of them will have to make this decision. They may be willing to "forbear" immediate payment, but no doubt their patience will eventually be exhausted, each on their own schedule. "Good for it" for a month seems very appropriate, but I doubt six months would be.

Why should a bank be expected to act any differently than a private investor? I suspect that Westneat, despite the current state of the economy, has some money in investments, retirement accounts and college funds (if he has children). I ask him to answer then, please, what exact return, terms and conditions would he require to lend her the money himself? Six percent a year? 10 percent? 20 percent?

Suppose Pentz offered to pay 50 percent interest? 100 percent? Oops. The two of you can't make that contract — usury laws. So, I guess even if there were an informed borrower and lender, the government would help determine which businesses succeed and which fail based on regulation of loan interest.

One of the key issues in the current "crisis" is that many traditional risk models are suspect, but can't be properly adjusted due to the friction of regulation, tradition or indignation informed by emotion, not mathematics.

Why shouldn't Pentz or anyone else be able to offer a loan request on, say, eBay and let the market bid without limit or restriction?

-- Norman Mainer, Redmond

Strong action against global warming

As an avid outdoorsman in Washington state, global warming is a really important issue to me because the increasingly violent weather patterns related to climate change are directly affecting our way of life in the Puget Sound region. We have experienced this recently within the flooding throughout the Puget Sound region.

I'm excited that President-elect Obama has identified global warming and clean energy as top priorities. I hope Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, will let our new president know that the people of Seattle will support him in taking strong action when he takes office Tuesday.

Most importantl, I urge President-elect Obama to commit to cutting emissions by at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. This is, consistent with what the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says developed countries must achieve to prevent catastrophic warming.

We've got a historic opportunity in front of us. Now it's time to get to work.

-- Geoff Guillory, Seattle

Want more, pay more

I seems obvious to me: The more the citizens of this country ask the government to do for them, the more it is going to cost. That means more taxes, not a rebate of taxes.

No Virginia, there is no such thing as a money tree. This may come as a shock to many, especially those who bought homes they could not afford or those who ran their credit-card balance to a point they could make the payments.

Any service we ask for must be paid for.

-- Bob Ely, Bellevue

Diesel retrofits, a win-win

As we look for ways to jump-start, "green" our economy and grow jobs at the same time, Congress is considering investing up to $1.5 billion in upgrading and retrofitting existing diesel equipment in order to reduce its air-pollution emissions. This is a proven and cost-effective approach to cleaner air that is shovel-ready should it be included in a stimulus package that builds upon existing efforts in Washington state to retrofit and replace school buses, other public fleet vehicles and diesel engines used at our seaports.

Diesel engines are the workhorse of the economy, building roads and utility infrastructure, bringing folks to work and children to school, and delivering the goods we depend on via our highways, rail lines and local seaports. Thanks to new emissions-control technology, the tens of thousands of existing engines can now be upgraded to improve efficiency and reduce emissions up to 85 percent.

The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) funds a portion of these retrofits and has already delivered proven benefits here through cleaner school buses and port equipment. The retrofit industry is also important to Washington-state workers employed at companies that service, manufacture or use emissions-reduction equipment for their diesel vehicles and equipment.

EPA estimates that DERA generates $13 of economic benefit for every $1 spent on diesel retrofits. The economic-stimulus package offers an opportunity to help scale up diesel retrofitting on a much larger basis, improve local air quality and secure Washington jobs, not just at the manufacturers, but at equipment service and repair facilities, which install and maintain this equipment.

Both industry and clean-air advocates agree: It's a win-win for the economy and air quality. We hope that U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Belfair, and the rest of our Congressional delegation will support this important initiative.

-- Dennis McLerran, Seattle

No spending, no way

In your article on economists in Sunday's Times ["Economists back big spending," business, Jan. 11], you report that Martin Feldstein wants increased spending and suggests replacing military supplies. He is wrong.

Military expenditures are a drag on the economy. They help the civilian infrastructure in no way. It would be the same if goods were produced and then taken out to sea and sunk.

What would help is to reduce military expenditures and then use the saved money on civilian projects.

-- Thomas R. Craig, Bellevue

Not the problem

Your editorial ["Target: entitlements," Jan. 12] states that Social Security "is heading into a cash deficit in eight years." According to the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), the Congressional Budget Office said Social Security is capable of meeting all of its obligations until 2048 without any changes at all.

CEPR has repeatedly pointed out it will be able to make up for any shortfall by modestly increasing payroll taxes, as it has done several times in the past, but not since the 1980s.

The sky is not falling on Social Security, and you should not be perpetuating the myth that it is. The myth is propagated by conservatives opposed to any kind of government anti-poverty program and who want to divert people's retirement savings into the stock market, which is demonstrably much less reliable than Social Security.

The real entitlement problem, as CEPR also points out, is Medicare's and Medicaid's ridiculously inefficient and overpriced health-care system based on overpaid doctors, pharmaceutical corporations and insurance companies.

Dealing with entitlements will entail reducing the profits of these industries, not squeezing the poor.

-- Chris Nielsen, Shoreline

Running surpluses, not a cash deficit

Have you no shame? Bernie Madoff is a piker compared to what you make of the U.S. Treasury. You conveniently omitted a number of facts from your editorial.

Social Security, at $2.5 trillion, is the number-one holder of National Debt obligations. You state, "It is heading into a cash deficit in eight years." You omit that it has been running surpluses since 1983 and is currently subsidizing the general-fund deficit to the tune of more than $200 billion per year.

Eight years from now, when payments exceed tax receipts, payments will still be less than the total of tax receipts plus annual interest earned. We are expected to remain this way for the following seven years. Social Security is forecast to hold about $4 trillion of Treasury debt. It is counting on those holdings to finance its obligations through 2042.

If you are advocating that Social Security write off its holdings as uncollectable, then say so. No Congress or administration, whether Republican or Democratic, is willing to make this admission. (Remember the "lockbox?") Instead, they are pointing the finger of blame at the institution whose regressive taxes have enabled their profligate deficit spending.

If Social Security is prevented from accessing its Treasury holdings and forced to continue this subsidy, what does this say about the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government, and how is it different from a de facto default on the national debt?

I expect the Fourth Estate to hold politicians' feet to the fire on this issue, not to aid and abet them in this chicanery.

-- Chris Curry, Bellevue

Growth from enterprise, not spending

It is important for The Times to present differing viewpoints, but I would think more care would be taken to choose letters for publication that contribute to a discussion, not perpetuate misinformation. Jonathan Ryweck ["Smart investments," NW Voices, Jan. 11] wrote, "Just as Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal projects … created real, long-term wealth that we are still enjoying 70 years later…" even though no reputable economist I have ever heard says this statement is true.

Roosevelt spent a lot of money, but only the need to produce weapons for a world war lifted us out of the Depression. After the war, good-old free enterprise created a growing economy and a standard of living unmatched in the world. Government spending had little to do with it.

My fear is that every spending program, large and small, that anyone has ever thought of will be included in the list projects to will "jump-start" the economy. I am not expert enough, and neither is Ryweck, to know which programs will get the economy growing and which are just on the liberal wish list. But, I know that the list we are seeing now will result in a huge increase in debt that our great grandchildren will pay for the next 70 years.

-- Henry Kroeger, Redmond

Do as the Chinese do

Today I read about the pathetic Detroit Auto Show ["Big Three selling optimism at start of Detroit Auto Show," business, Jan. 12] and its anemic exhibitors who are crying about not being able to design efficient cars. I also read about China's new plug-in hybrid electric car that can go 60 miles without using one drop of gasoline. It costs only $22,000 and will be sold here beginning in 2010.

The article about the Chinese car quoted its manufacturer as saying that an electric car is easier to build, and therefore quicker to be put on the market to start selling. So, why is the only thing we hear from American carmakers is one long, continual whine about why they can't do the same thing the Chinese are doing?

Congratulations to Chinese carmakers for doing at the drop of a hat what American carmakers say is impossible. If I could afford it, I would be the first person in line to buy the new Chinese car when it arrives in the U.S.

Good riddance to American carmakers. The sooner they are gone, the better.

-- Jay Kridner, Seattle

Not a spectator sport

It is inconceivable to me that the representatives who promoted Republican ideology of lowering taxes, spending billions on pre-emptive wars and bailing out Wall Street and the banking system with no accountability, would still have the ability to get in the way of true economic recovery. These people are a joke, yet the majority in the U.S. House and Senate will allow them to railroad our recovery.

Nothing is going to "trickle down." It is a stupid argument couched in sophistry. Make no mistake, these people will use anything to promote their agendas. They will lie about the past and sell us snake oil. Their record can be seen all around us.

C'mon fellow citizens, it is time to speak up. Read your history, stop listening to the pundits (right and left), get a true understanding of what is happening now and do your duty as a citizen. Democracy is not a spectator sport. We need to make a stand.

The U.S. faces the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression. Just how deep we go and how long the recession lasts depends upon how quickly we take steps to counter it. Contact your representatives. Speak up.

-- Mark Barabasz, Hansville

Buy time

As was announced in the past couple of days, Boeing is laying off 4,500 employees ["Boeing to cut 4,500 workers," page one, Jan. 10] and The Seattle P-I is up for sale ["Report: Stage set for P-I to close," page one, Jan. 9]. This is in addition to 2.6 million job losses in 2008, the most since 1945.

More than 300 leading economists agree with President-elect Obama that Congress needs to immediately pass a significant and broad-based economic-recovery package.

Already, conservatives who looted the Treasury for the past eight years are whining about the cost of saving this country's economy. Let them take their tax cuts and buy some time out.

Americans showed them the door Nov. 4, and unless we see a different approach to families in this country, it will be generations before that door is cracked open at the polls again.

-- Sandra Robbins, Seattle

Illogical spending

The media attempt to disguise the growing recession -- soon-to-be depression -- in euphemistic phrases that belie its deadly potential to abort the great American experiment. The underlying cause of the crisis can be expressed in two words: easy credit.

Universal, easy credit was the culprit that precipitated the disaster. When President-elect Obama declares, "We will spend our way out of this," I nearly die laughing. We will spend our way out of this? That has to be the oxymoron of the century. How does one spend one's way out of debt? Logic says the more a debtor spends, the more deeply he finds himself in hock.

The Marxists have struggled long and hard to bankrupt the American economy as the final step toward overthrowing the United States republic. Now that the conspirators' dream has finally come to fruition, the gullible suckers who fell for the robber barons' scam are living in denial.

However, it is only a matter of time until John and Jane Doe wake up and discover themselves in a two-class society of stinking-rich masters and their dirt-poor slaves. Consult Forbes' list of billionaires, and you will know the names of everyone whom you can thank for your loss of freedom and treasure.

The middle class is dead. It is all over -- except for the funeral and burial.

-- Warren Wilson, Kirkland

"Elect" not necessary

It is clear that President-elect Obama is now, in fact, the president. The current White House occupant has virtually disappeared in the face of the overwhelming economic recession/depression largely created by his own irresponsible deregulation and (aided, of course, by Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan's previous deregulation policies). The plan appears to have only Obama show his face during the rapidly deteriorating economic crisis, while Bush and Cheney retreat silently and scot-free.

Obama may have to kill a few sacred cows along the way, including the Ponzi-like Social Security and Medicare schemes, which are clearly unsustainable as currently administered. Beyond that, there must be major re-regulation, wherein the regulators must be kept distant from those whom they regulate.

Today's (and yesterday's) regulatory environment allowed them to regularly sit down together, become good friends, and funnel regulators into high-paying jobs in the financial fields they once allegedly regulated. This palsy-walsy situation must be ended abruptly, starting with a complete removal of the regulatory agencies' top echelon. There's also the need to alter the American mindset now, to give people some hope once again.

Then, of course, there are other major problems awaiting the new president: global warming (which was ignored and, therefore, exacerbated by the Bush administration), Iraq (wholly created by the Bush administration), Israeli/Arab hatreds and wars (probably unsolvable by any mortal), Korea (bungled by Bush), Russia (completely bungled by Bush), environmental degradation (greatly expanded by Bush), and many others.

To Obama, I say: Good luck. You'll need it, especially after Bush.

-- Bruce Barnbaum, Granite Falls

Smart investments

Investing massive amounts of money on renewable-energy development, modernizing the energy grid, transportation infrastructure and education are all great ideas that will not only jump-start the economy by putting people to work, they are smart investments that will pay dividends for years.

Just as Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal projects, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration, created real, long-term wealth that we are still enjoying 70 years later, these are the sorts of mega-capital-intensive projects that government can enact best.

However, a repeat of personal- tax-rebate checks is a gross waste of federal resources. It gave us a one month "growth" blip last spring and cost the federal treasury $150 billion. Our grandchildren shouldn't have to pay for this wasteful bloating of the national debt.

Let's invest our precious economic resources -- not fritter them away.

-- Jonathan Ryweck, Port Townsend

Misleading headline

The headline, "Stores closing, but Starbucks buys a jet" [News, Jan. 8] misrepresents the true circumstances.

Within the first three paragraphs, we learn that "Starbucks ordered the jet three years ago" and it just recently came into their possession. That's called taking delivery, not purchasing, and it's not the same thing. Both comments are misleading and sensationalist.

Starbucks deserves an apology, and I expect better from The Seattle Times.

-- Michael Herman, Walla Walla

Focus on the people, not Wall Street

I live in Olympia, in a wonderfully diverse, urban neighborhood. We are America: wealthy, middle class and poor; Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs; liberals and conservatives; blacks, whites, Hispanics, Chinese, Vietnamese, Romanians, Ukrainians -- all this and much more. We work hard everyday and raise our families well.

As President-elect Obama makes decisions concerning how to assist the American economy, we (and the millions just like us) are who he should be thinking about. We are the only force big enough, powerful enough, and smart enough to fix this mess.

A large part of this economic crisis is fear-based and media-generated. No matter how financially stable, no matter how secure your job, it's impossible not to feel anxious these days if you read a newspaper, watch TV, listen to the radio, use the Internet, or even just talk to friends.

Fear is palpable and contagious, but there is something Obama can do about it: talk to and focus his interventions on us. He shouldn't waste his time trying to spin positive stories or convince the media to stop being what they are: attention seekers and advertising purveyors. Rather, he should transcend the media, talk directly to America; remind us who we are.

We are the greatest generation and its progeny, immigrant-strong and resourceful. We are the most widely educated, hardworking, creative people on earth. We can do anything.

Our new president should remind us that we have, for 200 years, created and sustained the most powerful economic engine the world has ever known. He should remind us that our economy has created the largest, most widely educated middle class anywhere, ever. Remind us that this economy creates such a surplus of goods and services that anyone willing to educate themselves and work hard can enjoy a standard of living attainable only by royalty just a few generations ago.

Remind us that Merrill Lynch is not the economy, American International Group (AIG) is not the economy, General Motors is not the economy. We are the economy, and we are unstoppable because we are free, flexible, resilient, strong, and creative. Throughout history, we've proven that nothing can stop us or our economy -- not war, terrorism, inflation, fear or greed. Obama should remind us that anyone who has ever placed a long-term bet against us or our economy has lost.

He should forget about Wall Street, financial institutions, the auto industry, and all the corporations looking for bailouts. If he wants to fix this economy, he needs to focus on us.

For example, rather than bail out the housing and mortgage industry, he should create a federal program that makes 4 percent 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages available to all Americans who have the ability to make payments.

Rather than bail out the auto industry, he should make 4 percent auto loans available to all who have the ability to make car payments. Obama doesn't need to tell the auto industry how to make cars. He can trust the collective intelligence of Americans to buy the autos they want and need, and let those companies flourish or perish based on their ability to meet those needs.

During this economic turmoil, our new president need only do this: Remind us who we are and focus interventions on our strengths and needs, give us fair access to jobs and credit and then trust us to "vote with our dollars." This is, and always has been, the prescription for national economic success.

-- Robert Hodges, Olympia

Leave FDR in the past

Sorry David Sirota ["New Deal gets a raw deal when conservatives rap FDR," syndicated columnist, Jan. 5], a growing majority of historians and economists do agree that the New Deal prolonged the Depression. Just look at the facts. In 1931, the unemployment rate stood at 17.4 percent. After five years of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, the unemployment rate was 17.4 percent. Unemployment in the 1930s never went below 14 percent.

Roosevelt said in his first inaugural, "Our greatest primary task is to put people to work." The New Deal, while it did introduce social reforms that we value today, failed as a recovery program and made things worse.

It's time to move beyond the sentimental infatuation with FDR and let economists and historians sort out the truth. Journalistic attempts to rewrite history in order to provide cover for current Democratic strategies are yet another reminder of irresponsible bias in the media. In Sirota's introduction, he asserts, "… George W. Bush insisted Iraqi airplanes were about to drop WMD on American cities." I should have stopped reading at that point.

-- Robert Wilkes, Bellevue

Make them earn it

Like minimum-wage increases in the past, this will only increase the unemployment of young teens and potential entry-level job positions ["State's minimum wage rises to $8.55 an hour," News, Jan. 1].

I owned a custom manufacturing company in Seattle. Whenever the mandatory minimum wage is increased, a business owner will avoid hiring the unskilled. One would possibly no longer hire high-school or college students for summer jobs.

The pay increase, too, may exceed the starting wage of trade-union training programs. A beginning apprentice is paid by the union starting pay scale while being taught by a skilled journeyman.

Of course, to qualify, the trainee must be able to read, write and communicate and know basic mathematics.
The crux of the problem, I believe, could be the vast number of uneducated people in our society who would like to earn more money despite, perhaps, having dropped out of high school before acquiring necessary skills.

-- Donald Bearwood, Florence Ariz.

Overlook nothing

In 2006, Gov. Christine Gregoire requested $50 million from taxpayers to pay for incarcerated illegal aliens in Washington state's federal prison system ["Gregoire favors deportations as way to cut state's jail costs," Politics, Dec. 31].

What is Gregoire doing to secure our border with Canada? We know at least two Islamic Terrorists were caught. What about the ones that succeeded in breaching our border? What about the huge drain on our social services including Social Security?

Washington state is approaching 8 percent unemployment. What about the jobs illegal aliens are taking from U.S. citizens in Washington state? All businesses should be required to use the E-Verify system on hiring new employees, to make sure they are U.S. citizens.

-- Chuck Miller, Camas

Fix ourselves before we let others in

As an immigrant who used to prepare immigration applications, I wish to commend Gov. Christine Gregoire for advocating the deportation of jailed illegal aliens, to save our scarce fiscal resources.

The U.S. is borrowing from China and other countries to finance our current needs. Presently, more than 10 million Americans, including legal immigrants of diverse backgrounds, are unemployed.

Furthermore, 47 million people in this country are without health insurance, with immigrants and their U.S.-born children under 18 accounting for more than 70 percent of the growth of the uninsured population in the U.S.

Our schools and other infrastructure are also overburdened. Adding 3 million people a year to the U.S., mostly due to immigrants and their U.S.-born children will only exacerbate problems this nation is trying to solve.

Although some immigrants are great assets to the U.S., Gregoire should also advocate some sort of immigration moratorium so that we have a chance to affectively address many problems affecting all legal residents.

-- Yeh Ling-Ling, Oakland, Calif.

Well done

Lance Dickie's column was the best piece I've seen from The Times' stable of opinion writers since Terry Tang left for the big time in the early 1990s -- a clear and emphatic statement of fact-based cause and effect ["Crisis spurs epiphany at Church of Free Market," editorial column, Dec. 26].

-- Bill Redman, Mercer Island

What is the problem?

Mary Sanchez's "Immigrants are part of solution to nation's economic woes" simply ignores reality [syndicated column, Dec. 28].

Let's first look back just a few years to 2006 when the U.S. was experiencing rapid economic growth. There were 36.5 million people living in poverty. That translated into a 12.3 percent poverty rate.

In 1990, the population was smaller, and there were 33.6 million people in poverty, a rate of 13.5 percent. The increase from 1990 to 2006 was 2.9 million people. Hispanics accounted for all of that gain through open-border immigration policy.

Consider: From 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million. Meanwhile, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty fell from 16.6 million (poverty rate: 8.8 percent) in 1990 to 16 million (8.2 percent) in 2006.

Among blacks, there was a decline from 9.8 million in 1990 (poverty rate: 31.9 percent) to 9 million (24.3 percent) in 2006. White and black poverty has risen somewhat since 2000 but is down over longer periods.
So what does this say about December 2008, in an economic downturn, and census figures that shows the Puget Sound region's non-Hispanic population growth has held steady, while Hispanic/black population growth has grown significantly?

If immigration is the "solution" to economic woes, what is the problem?

-- Richard Pelto, Kenmore

Get a clue

This morning at breakfast I was talking to my son, who is home from college for the holidays, when he told me that Congress was considering taking action to abolish the Bowl Championship Series system ["Despite economy, a record 34 bowl games this year," Bud Withers staff column, Dec. 14]. I was speechless.

There are a lot of serious problems facing the country but, I'm sorry, college football playoffs is not one of them. The fact that even a single member of Congress would propose addressing such an issue is very telling as to why the country is in such trouble.

Having failed to address important issues like Social Security, Medicare and the astronomical medical costs in the country, and having done a miserable job with addressing the financial meltdown, one can sort of understand why they might want to tackle something like the BCS system.

Hearings could go on for weeks keeping them busy, and in the end, regardless of what they came up with, they could declare a win. A "win" in Congress is desperately needed to help justify the pay raise they recently voted themselves.

Meanwhile, increasing numbers of taxpayers are becoming non-taxpayers as they lose their jobs, but they can take solace in the fact that our Congress will be addressing college-bowl playoffs to make them more fair.

-- Jim Beaty, Seattle

What we deserve

At the end of 2008, Americans are just beginning to see and feel the results of years of very bad economic policies that began with the election of former President Ronald Reagan and the so-called Republican Revolution.

America will learn the hard way that government should not be run as a business. If governments are run like corporations, who is left to protect the interests of the people?

The sad thing is, all that is happening with the economy was totally preventable. There were many voices warning the public but they were ignored by the public and the media just as the voices warning the country about going to Iraq.

-- George Whitaker, Bellevue

Nobody's fault but mine

I enjoyed the column in the Dec. 26 Seattle Times about the collapsing economy and the irresponsibility of those who run the markets and those who are supposed to regulate them ["Crisis spurs epiphany at Church of Free Market," Lance Dickie, editorial columnist]. However, I take issue with his assertion that even though "decisions and choices" were made "at the highest levels of government and commerce . . . the rest of us get swept along for the ride." On the contrary, we bought the tickets for the ride ourselves.

The American voter bears the major responsibility for the way things are. Former President Bill Clinton was enthusiastic about free trade, and his legislative agenda and economic team encouraged deregulation of financial institutions and freer lending and borrowing.

Voters put him in office for two terms.

President George W. Bush took these matters further into the abyss by paying no attention at all to enforcing what little regulation was already in place. Voters put him in office for two terms.

So we voted for a possum and a skunk. They never pretended to be anything other than what they were. Did we expect they would magically morph into thoroughbred racehorses?

Americans also went on a spending spree in the past sixteen years, running up personal debt all on their own, all the while turning a blind eye to the national debt building during the Bush years.

The money managers in the private sector and their kindred spirits in the oversight field only behaved as one would expect, given the circumstances. It wasn't they who failed the little guy. The little guy himself failed to live up to the rough demands of a democratic system.

Thankfully, the situation has gotten so bad that now the little guy is maybe ready to learn from his mistakes, reform, and take some responsibility himself.

Thus the election of Barack Obama. I sincerely hope we can learn some lessons from this sad history that we've inflicted on ourselves.

-- Clyde Curley, Bellingham

Aren't we in a recession?

The U.S. Conference of Mayors has put together a wish list of projects it wishes the next Congress and incoming president to fund in his "New Deal" idea. I find some of these projects very interesting: $1.1 billion for 41 projects to improve Amtrak infrastructure, $718.5 million for 54 projects directed to museums, $192.6 million for 12 projects directed to stadiums, including $150 million for the Metromover Extension to Marlins Stadium in Miami, Florida.

(In 2008, the Florida Marlins had the worst attendance in Major League Baseball, playing in front of an average crowd of 16,668 fans, or 45.9 percent of their stadium's capacity).

Also on the wish list was $87 million for 56 projects for bicycle paths, $6 million for a reclamation/improvement project at Surfers Point beach in Ventura, Calif., $1.5 million for an initiative to reduce prostitution in Dayton, Ohio; $700,000 to plant 1,600 trees along the sidewalks in Providence, R.I.; and, $500,000 for environmentally friendly golf courses in Dayton, Ohio.

We can throw some great pork ideas from our state with these colossal wastes of taxpayer money with the following: $1.6 million for stadium improvements at Auburn Memorial Stadium, $6 million for rerouting a creek in Bremerton, $300,000 for Habitat for Humanity housing in Everett, $150,000 for major home repairs in Lakewood, $7 million for Qwest Field improvements and $316,000 for a Nutrition Program space rehabilitation in Seattle.

It is a shame our mayors and other elected officials have chosen to waste taxpayer money during an economic downturn.

--Todd Welch, Everett

Know the facts

It is unfortunate that the Federal Reserve's ruling that increased regulations on credit-card practices ignored the problems with bank overdraft and insufficient-funds fees ["New credit-card rules faulted," Business & Technology, Dec. 19]. A recent FDIC [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] study showed that the most vulnerable Americans -- youth and those with lower incomes -- are disproportionately affected by these hidden fees. And a survey done by our organization this month showed that half of consumers admitted to having overdrawn their account.

Somehow overdrawing checking accounts became a common practice, particularly among young Americans. The public and regulators need to understand that the interest and fees on these overdrafts or "bounced loans" are far more expensive than any other conceivable form of short-term borrowing.

-- James Bowers, managing director for the Center for Economic and Entrepreneurial Literacy, Washington, D.C.

Duck

President George W. Bush is going to relent and give $14 billion to the Big Three ["Bush orders emergency bailout of the auto industry," Politics, Dec. 20]. He is seeking accountability and concessions from the UAW [United Auto Workers].

No mention of accountability for the other $686 billion given to Wall Street, AIG [American International Group] and Lord knows who else.

Just more Bush/Cheney shenanigans -- I throw my shoes.

-- Carla Anderson, Everett

Fund education first

With the discussion of options and heightened tension of a decision about which Highway 99 viaduct option to fund, decision makers and our lawmakers need to step back and reconsider their priorities.

Any viaduct funding should be answered with a lawsuit, charging our Legislature with misappropriating funds. With K-12 education "the paramount duty" of the state, funding replacement of a repairable structure has to be secondary to fully funding K-12 education in the next budget.

-- John Gilbert, Seattle

Free up the cash

I believe a case can be made by all counties and King County, in particular, for real-estate tax relief.
We pay an average of 1 percent of appraised value or $3,000 on an average home. Reducing the rate to three quarters of 1 percent would save homeowners about $750.

This eliminates the need to wait for appraisals and the homeowner would spend the money paying sales tax on purchases. The merchant would pay more B-and-O [business and occupation] tax, stimulating our economy, plus buyers would buy homes knowing the tax is less.

This plan could continue for one year with renewal if progress is made.

-- Russ Moppes, Sammamish

Teach 'em cheap

Isn't it wonderful that the teachers and students have to absorb the budget cuts ["Gregoire releases slimmed-down state budget," News, Dec. 18]? Fewer teachers, larger classes and even less time to teach.

Stack 'em deep, teach 'em cheap is still the motto.

Even the "property-poor" districts lose $125 million in levy-equalization funds. Isn't it good to see the pain spread among those who already are in pain? No need to infect the multitude of nonteaching administrators without whom schools could not possibly operate, and teachers could not possibly function.

-- James Behrend, Bainbridge Island

Enough is enough

After reading "On Nickels' wish list: solar panels atop Qwest Field hall" [News, Dec. 20], and listening to the pundits' snide comments about the "pork" asked for by the mayors and governors in the recent meetings with our next president, I can't help but wonder why one simple question isn't being asked: Why is this money leaving our localities and going to the federal government in the first place.

They have no right to take our money and distribute it as they see fit, especially since most of it goes to support a ridiculous foreign policy, to other countries fighting wars and to useless federal bureaucracies, all through an illegal federal income tax. This sort of collectivism has never worked and never will.

If they want to provide real stimulus and fix this country, they'll bring all of our troops home, cut the federal government down to its constitutional size and get rid of the Federal Reserve and federal income tax so the localities can take care of themselves rather than relying on the federal government.

-- Adam Schmidt, Tacoma

What's next?

Mayor Greg Nickels idea for spending $7 million to put solar panels atop Qwest Field Exhibition Hall makes about as much sense as spending the money on an outdoor swimming pool in Fairbanks, Alaska.

At least with the swimming pool they could use it as an ice-skating rink in the winter. God help us if Nickels' top choice for spending the stimulus money is indicative of the projects that will be funded to alleviate our economic problems.

-- Bill Hirt, Bellevue

Something less glamorous

We should not view potential federal-stimulus funds as though they are some sort of gift to be frittered. Instead, we should invest prudently, as though it were our own money, and keep in mind that, since it is all borrowed, it is really our children's money that we are using to fund our lifestyle. Their generation will be expected to pay back what we have borrowed.

The Seattle Times story regarding Mayor Greg Nickels' request for $7 million for solar panels atop the Qwest Field Exhibition Hall does not provide enough data to determine the project's payback period, but the fact that the mayor isn't touting this aspect of the project leads me to think that it isn't a wise use of funds.

I bet there are other, less-glamorous projects with shorter payback periods that should top our list of things to do.

-- Scott Flagg, Kirkland

A time for irresponsibility

In instance after instance, the focus of the foreclosure debate in this country has been on predatory lending, not on personal accountability.

Although entirely predictable, but especially disturbing at this pivotal time, is the near complete aversion among our elected representatives and the media to forcefully discuss the share of responsibility home buyers have in this crisis.

Those of us who delayed gratification and saved our money to make a down payment, who didn't buy at the limit of our credit, and who put aside enough before buying to make our payments, even if faced with extended unemployment; we are the ones truly paying the price.

We are watching our home values plummet and in the future will be receiving even less value for our tax dollars, as a greater percentage will be used to pay interest on loans required to bail out these irresponsible people.

While we worked, saved and earned the right of homeownership, they enjoyed huge tax breaks and unearned social status as homeowners.

Accountability, delayed gratification and living within one's means are concepts that need to be part of the national consciousness again. If, in determining who merits aid there is not some criteria based on prior income, savings and credit history, what will the country learn from this experience?

The country will learn once again that irresponsible behavior carries no penalty and that the shrinking number of fools who behave responsibly will shoulder the burden. Until we learn that, it's responsible behavior that comes with a price.

-- Stuart Barker III, Seattle

Truly brilliant

Your recent stories covering the activities of Bernard Madoff, the brilliant financier of all times, make a compelling case that he be considered for the Nobel Prize in economics next year ["Securities experts, investors don't buy Madoff was solo act," Dec. 19; "Madoff's financial empire audited by tiny firm: one guy," Dec. 18; "Madoff's clients all over the world," Dec. 16; "A trusted man, $50B, a "giant Ponzi scheme," Dec. 13].

His absolute great talent was to make people feel comfortable with turning their money over to him for great returns.

He outmaneuvered investment bankers, lawyers, economists, accountants, commercial real-estate investors and developers -- not to mention the folks at Securities and Exchange Commission.

Just imagine some of the comments by individuals who invested in his empire: "They thought Bernie Madoff was genius and anybody, who didn't give them their money, was a fool," and "He was considered a wizard."

Obviously, he is a genius to build an impressive portfolio, at least on paper, that would accumulate approximately $50 billion in a few years. What an amazing accomplishment.

-- Aslam Khan, Bellevue

The perfect solution

What a perfect time to raise the gas tax. Now that gasoline prices are a third of what they were last summer, and now that we need to get people working on something of significance, raise the gas tax an amount that will matter -- none if this nickel stuff that doesn't keep up with growth. The tax should be 15 cents to 25 cents.

While you're at it, couple this with a revision to the prevailing-wage law that makes every public project in this state cost 25 percent more than a private project.

Give something back to the taxpayers.

How about utilizing market wages or paying 80 percent of the prevailing wage -- whichever is greater.

The state Department of Tranportation has 100 projects ready that are just waiting for funding. You could have an army of construction workers mobilized and making a decent living by summer, and the public would get a more efficient and convenient transportation system.

-- Jerry Forell, Kirkland

What help?

As a teacher hired in 2006, I will be going through the National Boards Certification process. You stated that "Seattle offers assistance for its teachers as well." As a Seattle teacher, I'm curious about that statement ["National Board Certification = Quality Teachers," editorial, Dec. 15].

We were informed that Seattle Public Schools offers one planning day for its teachers going through the board process. No videographer, no upfront payment for teachers (like Bellevue does), and if you want a support group -- lucky for the UW [University of Washington]. Since they partnered with Seattle Public Schools, UW gets our $500 for being a part of a cohort.

With the state budget crisis, teachers' cost of living allowance is threatened. We were told that there was only one more year guaranteed for the $5,000 bonuses. After that, the state couldn't promise anything.
Being a new teacher who started a career with over than $30,000 in school loans from my master's degree and special-education endorsement, I'm wondering, since my district won't help me with the costs, and it looks like the state won't be in any shape to help over the next few years, if The Seattle Times would help us teachers out?

Since they think its such a good idea.

-- Kate Napolitan, Seattle

Jail them all

The Ponzi scheme pulled off for 40 years by Bernard Madoff, taking new investors' money to pay off previous investors, is nothing compared with state-sponsored retirement plans ["AG recuses himself from Madoff fraud probe," Politics, Dec. 17].

At least in his case those who got stiffed were already wealthy and could afford what they lost. Not so in the case of Social Security. We're talking about you and me, and we didn't have a choice in the matter.

If we can put Madoff in jail, why can't we do the same with Congress?

-- Mark Nassutti, Kirkland

They deserve the best

"Earmarks help businesses, not troops" is the kind of investigative reporting that restores my faith in the press [Nation & World, Dec. 7]. Now I have more evidence with which to scream at the top of my lungs for congressional reform.

Although the story cites a veritable litany of facts surrounding this particular round of bribery, it is one of the photos that speaks volumes. With hands over their hearts, senators (including the future Secretary of State Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton) seem to pledge allegiance to the profiteers who throw them a few corporate crumbs, expecting a healthy return on their investment.

So much for the needs of our soldiers when there is profit involved. Sen. Thad Cochran was quoted as saying that without earmarks, "this lifesaving product [the powder] would not get to our troops as expediently as it should."

Expedient indeed. Just what would happen if we ditched the earmarks? Might the best product (such as the lotion that provides seven times more effective protection) come out on top? Ask your members of Congress about that.

-- Leonard Eiger, North Bend

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke speaks during a conference on housing and mortgage markets Dec. 4 in Washington, DC. Bernanke spoke on the latest development of the credit-market crisis.

Put the cash
back in your pockets

Editor, The Times:

Here is a quick solution for the housing and economic crisis:
In the next 30 days, require all banks that are receiving federal aid to adjust all mortgages on primary residences to 3.5 percent, 30-year fixed rates.

Issues solved: Homeowners would see an instant relief on their monthly payments, freeing up cash. This lack of delay would bypass mortgage brokers, red tape and other time-consuming issues that would delay relief.

The current Fed plan of lowering key rates ["Fed's big rate cut just for starters," Times, page one, Dec. 17] and expecting banks to pass this along will not solve the problem. Housing prices have deflated and jobs have been lost, so many people will not be able to refinance if given the opportunity.

This plan would instill confidence in the public for the $350 billion that has already been partially given to the banking system, with little oversight and with no noticeable results.

People who can't survive after this drastic cut are over-leveraged and would not be able to survive this crisis with any realistic fix.

-- Patrick Wylie, Seattle

Raise the rates

After years of following a failed economic policy that has resulted in the worst recession since the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve is up to its old ways, as if they can't conceive of anything else.

Lowering interest rates to the point of absurdity is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.

Where's the incentive now for anyone to put money in the bank, with interest rates on savings at the lowest level in my lifetime? Why save, the banks tell us, when you can charge everything and continue to accrue more debt than you can afford?

I'm not an economist, but it seems obvious that capitalism needs capital. We need a reason to put money into a bank. We cannot spend our way to prosperity. Loans only make sense when cash is available to cover debt. Interest rates must be raised, or all our economic woes will simply continue.

-- Alan Moen, Entiat

The medium 12

I would like to dispel the myth that politicians and the auto industry are trying to sell us: If GM, Ford and Chrysler fail, there will be a total destruction of the auto industry in America ["In auto bailout, GOP finds an old foe," Politics, Dec. 14].

Do not fall for this false logic.

Do you really believe that GM's many factories, car models, intellectual property and manufacturing knowledge would simply pass into the night and forever be lost? No way.

They would be forced to sell off various pieces of their business to pay their bills and save what little they can.

In the end America, will be left with a much stronger auto industry.

Right now we've got the Big Three in America. I contend that our auto industry would be much better off if we had "the medium-sized 12."

And that's exactly what would happen. Ford, GM and Chrysler will sell off various assets and factories to investors who will then operate much smaller auto companies. That would mean more competition and, as a result, more innovation in the new and improved American auto industry.

-- Matt McCormick, Seattle

The American way

As the state budget is being scrutinized for spending cuts or "tightening the belt," it is helpful to consider the bigger picture in consequential terms ["Gov. Gregoire suggesting budget cuts Thursday," News, Dec 15].

In an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Nobel Prize Economist Joseph Stiglitz and director of the Congressional Budget Office Peter Orszag maintain that "If anything, tax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run."

Washington Tax Fairness Coalition Executive Director Barb Flye cites nearly half a billion in new and extended tax breaks could be used to offset spending cuts. A mix of spending cuts and revenue generation present a balanced approach to dealing with our state's fiscal crisis.

We should insist on corporate financial disclosure to ensure our subsidies have produced the jobs and benefits promised and "clawback" those funds if they haven't. Tax loopholes are costing our state millions of dollars. Yet programs for health and human services, jobs, education, crime enforcement and public safety are all endangered by spending cuts. It would be a mistake to simply privatize the profits but socialize the losses.

Shared rewards and shared sacrifices; that's the American way.

-- Brian Grad, Bremerton

What next?

The recent story about cuts to after-school programs speaks to an issue happening right here in our local communities ["After-school cuts stir fears of kids home alone," Nation & World, Dec. 12]. The story cited programs in other states experiencing budget cuts, but we don't need to look further than our neighborhood after-school programs to see how the deepening recession is impacting where kids spend their time once the school bell rings.

We have all heard about the proposed school closures the Seattle School Board and superintendent are considering right now. These closures and relocation of programs will not only impact kids and families during the school day, but also before and after school. Every site proposed for closure and re-purposing houses at least one out-of-school-time program that provides critical services to the school community. If the schools are closed, where will kids who rely on out-of-school-time programming go?

Especially with the recent rise in youth violence, we need these programs, which provide a safe and enriching place, more than ever. And our families need the support of after-school programs as many parents find themselves working longer hours or juggling several jobs to make ends meet.

While budgets need to be balanced, we must preserve the safety-net of programs like after-school services that foster healthy communities.

-- Danielle Baer, Seattle

Save the Center

Seattle Public Schools plans to close or move the Center School to Rainier Beach High School, despite a growing number of families in North Seattle. Why don't they expand schools where there is demand, instead of forcing students into empty seats?

The loss of this school will leave a hole in neighborhoods that badly need a high school. Do they really want more parents screaming to get their children into Ballard High School? The elementary schools are overflowing now and the pressure will grow with the students.

The Center School is a hidden jewel in the district and its location at the Seattle Center is what makes it unique. Students work closely with arts organizations like the Seattle Repertory Theatre and parents are highly involved. Why not expand upon this success and make the school a citywide magnet program?

We are in tough times but the school district needs to make smart decisions. They shouldn't kill the Center School. They should keep it right where it is.

-- Georgi Krom, Seattle

Let it fix itself

As the Democrats in Congress and the president seem to have come to some agreement on an auto-industry bailout, when is anyone going to be honest with their intentions ["In auto bailout, GOP finds an old foe," Politics, Dec. 14]?

It is obviously a bad investment -- the automakers have not generated a profit in years and show no attempt to make one. It is becoming apparent that the betterment of the taxpayers is not at the forefront.

By not forcing the Big Three to declare Chapter 11, where they must renegotiate supplier and labor contracts and restructure the organization, we are delaying the inevitable destruction of these companies at the cost of a huge taxpayer bill.

The arrogance shown by Congress, in particular Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, that they can run these companies, is almost obscene. The fact that Congress wants to force Americans to driver smaller cars that run on something other than fossil fuels is evident. If American consumers don't want them, then we will be forced either through regulation, supply or taxes.

We have been writing checks that we can't cash with the bank bailout, soon the auto bailout and on the horizon, the infrastructure plan. Who will pay the piper? We must allow the principles of a free market to not be breached, with catastrophic unintended consequences.

A free market has ups and downs; we must ride them to allow our economy to naturally fix itself. I know it is a painful process, but we win in the long run.

-- Todd Welch, Everett

Help a guzzler out

The big oil companies have been rolling around in obscene profits for a few years now. Why don't they bail out their partners, the Big Three automakers? That may even guarantee them gas guzzlers rolling down the highways for years to come.

-- Barry Hohstadt, Bainbridge Island

End of an era

Did the Senate, Congress or White House ask the bankers or Wall Street executives to fire themselves or have a czar watch over their firms? Did they demand $6.2 billion in bonuses not be given Wall Street executives who helped get us in this jam? Did they even ask any of these groups what they were going to do with the money? No.

This is not a loan; it's a giveaway. We see banks buying other banks and the wealthy getting wealthier with no strings attached.

God forbid the auto companies ask for funds to continue their operations to support American workers.
While our politicians give VW $500 million to build plants in America and Sen. John McCain tries to get the Air Force to buy tankers from the foreign company Airbus, our economy is sinking like a stone.

Congressmen are upset with the benefits autoworkers receive. What about the benefits Congress receives? How many days do they get off every year? You can back up your Mercedes, Lexus or BMW to the Treasury and load your trunks full of money, but do not show up in a Chevrolet, Ford or Chrysler because you'll be turned away.

Americans should be furious. Is this really the end of the industrial revolution in America?

-- Pete Jones, Anacortes

The way it works

In your Dec. 11 editorial you criticize the airlines for having the nerve to charge for things that people want ["Buck up and fly," Dec. 12]. That is not such a strange concept if you think about it. Isn't that the point in a free-market economy? We want companies to make as much money as possible so shareholders can maximize their returns. However, some industries seem to run smoother than others.

Why is it that many industries lack the dysfunction and drama that is playing out with banks, automakers and airlines? Are stupid, greedy people somehow strangely drawn to manage these industries, or is there another common thread here?

All of these industries are very capital-intensive and are greatly affected by government policies and regulation. For many years we have been building eight-lane freeways and lawmakers have made great efforts to keep gas prices low. Lax regulation and low interest rates have encouraged an irresponsible use of consumer debt. Overreaching bankruptcy protection and heavy government taxes and regulation have led to a hypercompetitive, dysfunctional airline industry.

Unfortunately, taxpayers have now bailed out all three of these industries in this decade. Legislating our way to cheap gas, airline tickets and home loans has come back to haunt us. Our government needs to provide a stable, common-sense framework so these industries can operate in a long-term healthy marketplace.

Then these industries will hopefully stop giving us so much angst and provide consumers with a good product while making a reasonable profit.

-- Eric Driggers, Bainbridge Island

David Zalubowski / The Associated Press

Unsold 2009 Ranger pickup trucks sit at a Ford dealership in Frederick, Dacono, Colo.

The answer is:
taxpayers

Editor, The Times:

Congress lends $15 billion to the auto industry, which must repay the loans plus interest. This is to "protect taxpayers."

But who will repay that $15 billion plus interest? Car buyers. And who are the car buyers? Taxpayers.

Money paid to the government reduces net income, new product investment, salaries and the price of auto stock. And who are the workers and stockholders? Taxpayers.

Because politicians have little business sense, they think companies are like the government, which creates dollars from thin air.

Companies must pay from margins.

Taxpayers won't pay for the loan. No extra taxes are levied. In fact, taxes will be cut. But taxpayers will pay for the higher price of cars and the lower profits when the auto companies are forced to repay the government.

What should the government do to protect taxpayers? Give the money to the auto companies, and don't ask for interest.

-- Rodger Mitchell, Wilmette, Ill.

Stop being cheap

For 20 years, American consumers told the auto industry they wanted gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs -- the bigger the better ["GM to lay off 2,000 more workers at 3 factories," Business, Dec. 5].

Recently Former Vice President Al Gore started to cry that the sky is falling and the oil industry raised the price of its product to $140 a barrel. Driving a Hummer or Escalade now is an economical and environmentally unforgivable sin.

Walk out to the middle of any freeway overpass and witness the river of Hyundais and Kias.

Americans now want little cars but are too cheap to pay the extra few grand it costs for American-built vehicles. The U.S. auto industry is failing because we choose to let it.

We cry about the economy but refuse to buy American products. It is up to each and every one of us to make an effort to put down the cheap imported knock-off and invest our money in products made by our own country.

-- Gene Davis, Lake Forest Park

No more media gotchas

So the Big Three auto executives are reduced to driving from Detroit, Mich., to Washington, D.C. What a frivolous and wasteful pander to a showboating Congress, pathetic media pundits and a clueless public.

If auto executives can't say no to stupid media gotchas, how are they going to say no to thousands of redundant white-collar and union workers?

If Congress won't acknowledge their terrible transportation-policy mistakes over the past few decades, how can we have confidence in anything it does?

Congress has thrown almost $2 trillion at financial paper shufflers without interviewing a single banker.

Why grill auto executives for a much smaller amount and not the bankers?

And if the various media outlets won't investigate serious questions, how can the public be expected to know anything?

The Big Three could have added a private car to the Amtrak Capital Limited. With a relaxed overnight and conference time in the morning, they could then walk to the nearby hearings.

Now that would be a transportation alternative.

-- Wilson Geegh, Bellevue

You don't even know

Recently, Sens. Chris Dodd and Charles Schumer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Barney Frank and others seem to be taking delight in ripping the CEOs from GM, Ford and Chrysler for incompetence, mismanagement and high salaries.

The CEOs have made mistakes, but no more than the politicians who govern our country. These same politicians have wasted hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars with lard in legislative bills.

But they don't have the responsibilities of the CEOs.

These CEOs try to keep hundreds of thousands of workers employed, bring innovative products to market and also try to sell American products abroad to bring revenue into the U.S. Their total responsibilities are huge.

Dodd should heed his own words to move on, as he has suggested for the CEOs. And as for Schumer's remarks that he doesn't trust the CEOs, I can say I don't trust him, let alone 99 percent of politicians.

I have yet to hear a word from the politicians about the high salaries of pro sports athletes or entertainers, who make millions and don't contribute at all. Nor do they bring innovative products to the market.

If the politicians want to let the auto companies sink, let them declare bankruptcy and let's see what happens. I don't think any of the politicians could even hold a supervisory position with the auto companies.

-- Karl Wahl, Bellevue

Who's going
to watch over Congress?

Just as Congress wants oversight of the Big Three automakers, it seems time for American taxpayers to have more direct oversight of Congress for similar reasons. This thought comes after reading yet another story about "earmarks," which help specific states and companies at the expense of the country ["Earmark helps businesses, not troops," Nation & World, Dec. 7].

Some results of lobbying of members of Congress by special interests has been lack of oversight with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, "earmarks" that benefit specific companies/states, and/or personal or party benefits (campaign funding, etc.).

It's time for some changes.

Here are some suggestions for members of Congress: Serve terms no longer than a president; receive a livable wage with any raise tied to the fiscal well-being of the country; receive the same health-care choices as the working class; receive reduced retirement pay, as the working class does; and be a part of the Social Security system.

The option to continue "as is" seems unreasonable. Nothing will change unless you contact your elected folks in "the other Washington" and let them know you are dissatisfied with the status quo.

-- Jim Davison, Waitsburg

We make the economy go 'round

During this past election, rescuing Main Street became the cause celebre for both Republicans and Democrats, each candidate striven to prove to American voters that they best understood the pain of people living on Main Street.

In a recent speech, President-elect Barack Obama again used the Main Street metaphor to reference distressed mortgage holders. But there's a problem: The metaphor isn't actually accurate.

Main Street in America isn't lined with three-bedroom bungalows and two-car garages. Main Street is home to hardware stores and hair salons, bakeries and bistros, pharmacies, flower shops, yoga studios and a dwindling number of independent bookstores. The tenants of Main Street are small businesses -- one constituency being ignored in the rush to tackle the current economic crisis racking this country.

For 30 years I've owned small businesses -- general stores and garden centers in Seattle's inner-city neighborhoods. My partners and I opened stores in areas undergoing transitions where our presence provided the retail anchor needed to attract other small businesses. We brought new prosperity to our communities and our stores prospered, too. For most of the past three decades, except for the few months following Sept. 11, 2001, we've enjoyed positive sales growth.

But with the markets in turmoil, unemployment claims reaching a new high and consumer confidence a new low, we're watching sales shrink and profits dry up. Like the middle class, we're struggling, squeezed by the high cost of health insurance, property and business taxes, rent, utilities and freight. Sales and profitability, especially in the past few months, are not keeping pace with the rising costs of doing business.

Between our two stores and a landscape company, my partners and I employ 82 people. Our business will never be deemed too large to fail by the Treasury.

Yet, along with the 26.8 million other small businesses in America, we're the ones who created a net increase in jobs over the past five years, while big business axed jobs or sent them overseas.

When our new president and Congress take office in January, we need them to implement a stimulus package that takes us into consideration. We need a tax code that works for small businesses, not just large ones. We need affordable health care for our employees and ourselves. We need assurance that credit will be available to us when we need it, not when the banks feel secure in extending it. We need people in Washington, D.C., who care.

Small businesses are the backbone of America. We produce and sell goods, provide services, entertainment, lodging and information. We support local charities, volunteer time and money to keep our neighborhoods clean and safe, and serve on boards of community organizations.

It's small business owners, like us, who keep the lights of Main Street turned on, display windows filled with cheer, and create well-being in our neighborhoods. If our businesses suffer and fail, if lights are turned off and storefronts boarded up, Main Street in America will be a darker, sadder place.

-- Judith Gille, City People's Mercantile and City People's Garden Store, Seattle

Donkey-backwards

It's rare I read or even expect good low-income-housing advice from The Times. Your Monday editorial supports my expectations ["A Hazardous Way To Price Housing," editorial, Dec. 8].

Your true premise is to let the market decide, which you decline to say. You call incentives a "tax." Incentives are a tax break. You bully readers with that well-known saw, "Tax a thing and you tend to get less of it." What is true is that the market is not building affordable low-income housing. Incentives, optional or mandatory, are one way to deliver to cities some amount of housing affordable to lower-income households.

Developers will say housing for those making 60 percent or less of Area Median Income (AMI) does not pencil out, though few ask to see those accounting numbers to confirm this claim.

We see too many, including a group led by former Seattle Mayor Charley Royer, pushing for incentives at 80 percent AMI (and above) and saying that lower-income segments "don't pencil out."

During the past dozen years, it seems to some observers that those building housing must make significant, beyond reasonable profit for consideration of any project. Times have changed. I'd be surprised if at least a few developers are not beginning to realize that having projects at all, especially those that provide truly affordable housing and a modest developer profit, exceeds the stranglehold in which developers have held cities for tax breaks, i.e. incentives, to do what the market already provides.

By extension, those most in need of this affordable housing continue to suffer. Among the missing pieces in your editorial is whether we make building affordable housing optional or mandatory. I'd guess you'd say that anything mandatory is a "tax." For people who live by the word, you have surely gotten it donkey-backwards.

-- Bill Kirlin-Hackett, Lynnwood

Make it a priority

News reports say that the U.S. Treasury is working on a plan to offer a 4.5-percent mortgage rate on many Freddie Mac- and Fannie Mae-backed home loans in a bid to head off foreclosures.

How are they going to avoid rewarding people who never should have even be applying for those loans in the first place? Like people who have evidence of poor personal financial management and an abundance of "toys" they couldn't really afford.

For those people to get such a break, make them first pass a rigidly structured and graded managerial and budgeting test. Included must be full disclosure of assets in excess of $500.

This same test should also be made available to schools, where all too often economics is just a "left over" subject included in something called social studies.

-- James Shenfield, Bainbridge Island

Fail if they must

Dear senator/representative,

Do not bail out the auto companies.

Let them fail if they must.

Auto companies should look at Boeing as a model of reinvention and recovery over the years.

Hard times? Yes. Layoffs? Yes. Bailouts? No.

Build a product the customer wants to buy.

-- John Derrig, Bellevue

This is no nuclear winter

The President-elect Barack Obama administration has a golden opportunity to reverse decades of denial and hubris in the U.S. auto industry, which has led to "nuclear winter" for auto sales [" 'Nuclear winter' for car dealers," Nation & World, Dec. 2].

U.S. automakers have been ignoring all of the road signs since the OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] crisis of 1973 and now scramble to the taxpayers for a fat loan. What caught my eye was the comparison of this self-inflicted wounding of the auto industry to the apocalyptic blacking out of the sun in a nuclear war. Both events are or would be man-made.

The discord is in scale. Comparing a predictable meltdown in auto sales to the blacking out of the sun for weeks to months is something like comparing the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedy to the Nazi Holocaust. We are talking about hugely different scales of human deceit and depravity.

Hopefully, the Obama administration will help the auto industry become competitive again with truly environmentally friendly vehicles based on renewable, nonfood fuel sources and help the American and worldwide public realize the dream of eliminating the weaponry that would cause nuclear winter.

-- David Hall, Seattle

Put the money to good use

Instead of giving direct subsidies to auto manufacturers and financial institutions that have already proven that they don't know how to run their businesses, the government should give down payments to purchasers of autos and make the interest on auto loans tax deductible. The amount of the down payment provided should be larger for the more-fuel-efficient vehicles. The government could help financial institutions by underwriting auto loans. This approach would address a number of issues:

The economy would get a boost because consumers would buy more automobiles; manufacturers who didn't build the right vehicles would deservedly be allowed to fail; more energy-efficient autos would reduce dependence of foreign oil and reduce global warming, and financial institutions would benefit from the increase in auto loans.

While it may be simplistic, with some refinements this approach makes a lot more sense than handing over billions to people who have failed for years to make their business models successful and who give us no reason to believe those billions will create success.

-- David Storm, Everett

Pool our efforts

While I hear Congress asking industry and banking executives to take salary cuts or return bonuses in return for government help, and President-elect Barack Obama asking taxpayers to accept service cuts or pay higher taxes, I ask myself: What is the government doing except spending money it doesn't have?

Haven't our legislators and government executives contributed to the economic mess we are in? It seems to me that the least any of them could do would be to take a salary cut say of 10 percent, abstain from giving themselves raises and limit the salaries of political appointees in these times until the economy gets better.

I'm no economist, but it seems that such a move would free up at least hundreds of millions of dollars for needed expenses as well as send a signal to the rest of the world that this country is not composed entirely of "what's-in-it-for-me" greedy and power-hungry individuals.

I'm not smart enough to make this happen, but perhaps if all of us write our legislators, contact our newspapers and use the Internet, our government will realize that each of us must sacrifice to get through this recession.

-- Tom Hamilton, Shoreline

We're on a road to nowhere

This story puts a new spin on the economic-meltdown reporting ["Feds retreated from reining in lenders," Business & Technology, Dec. 2]. At first we were told the regulators were at fault for not doing their job to stop reckless lending practices. Now we learn regulators wanted the Bush administration and Congress to crack down on said lending practices, but failed to do so when they caved under the banking lobby.

This is another example of how broken our government is. Once again, business interest trumps citizen interest or even common sense.

President-elect Barack Obama has put a firewall between his transition team and lobbyists, which is a good start to wrestling control of our government away from corporate interests.

We also need a firewall between lobbyists and lawmakers, and lawmakers should vote on one bill at a time. No more lumping earmarks in with a new budget or bill. If a pork project can't stand on its own merit, then it deserves to fail.

We can't afford anymore "bridges to nowhere" or bailouts.

-- Cindy Butler, Edmonds

Not ready to retire

In a letter from Dick Nelson there is a reference to "the state's mandatory retirement age of 70" ["Get in the spirit," Northwest Voices, Nov. 27]. There has been no mandatory retirement age for faculty at the University of Washington since 1994.

Federal laws on age discrimination have been interpreted as prohibiting mandatory retirement ages except in a few specific cases (e.g., law-enforcement officers.)

-- Harry Edmon, Brier

A simple solution

We continue to incarcerate nonviolent people under the "three strikes" law for entire lifetimes at the rate of more than $1 million each ["Legislature, governor must find $5 billion in spending cuts without raising taxes," editorial, Nov. 23].

Some 72 percent of those incarcerated under this legislation are in prison because of second-degree robbery strikes and/or second-degree assault strikes. Second-degree robbery does not involve weapons, injuries or violence. Most second-degree assaults are simple barroom brawls.

200 of these people multiplied by $1 million equals $200 million. This expenditure is a waste of human life as well as a waste of taxpayer dollars.

-- Moira Hennings O'Crotty, Tacoma

Two houses -- one too many

Unlike the U.S. House and Senate, both houses of the Washington state Legislature have to be based on districts of equal population. This makes the second house a redundancy and the Legislature costly and inefficient. Of our 50 States, only Nebraska realized this and operates with a one-house Legislature.

The 2007 to 2009 legislative operating budget was $165,845,000. With 98 state representatives and 49 senators, this budget comes to about $1,300,000 per member. If our national Senate can operate with 100 members, a one-house Legislature of 100 members should be sufficient to handle the state's legislative duties.

If we had such a Legislature during the 2007 to 2009 biennium and if it operated at $1.3 million per member, the total budget would have been $130 million -- a saving of more than $35 million. This is a reduction in cost of more than 20 percent and is about half of the cost of a new Keystone ferry.

A change to a one-house Legislature should come before a lot of the other cost reductions that have been proposed for the 2009 to 2011 state budget.

-- Jack Sceva, Stanwood

Take back control

With the bailout of so many companies, I believe there should be a requirement that no person in those companies should be allowed to make more than the president of the U.S. until said companies have repaid all of the borrowed funds. This would allow us to see how seriously these company executives believe they actually need the funds. The salary limitation should also include all bonuses.

Also, if you are a stockholder and the value of those stocks has dropped appreciably, you have a right to submit a salary proposal to the stockholders for the company executives that reflects your change in stock value. There are time deadlines that do need to be met.

-- Bob McGregor, Colville

Jump in and help

We now have a new president calling for public education to take a harder look at charter schools and merit pay to improve student learning in our schools ["Obama vows swift action on economy," Times, Politics, Nov. 23]. I teach these children. I get up every single morning thinking about, working for and feeling the needs of my class deeply as I teach the curriculum demanded of me.

I, like most teachers, put in an average of 10 to 12 hours each workday and most weekends. Yet, each year more is asked of us. Teachers don't need charter schools or incentive pay to work any harder. It is not just a matter of curriculum. Japan, China, Belgium, France, Germany and so many more countries have higher achievement because they treasure learning as a nation, and look at and respect teachers as a valuable tool in life. The U.S., on the other hand, has an underfunded and punitive program called No Child Left Behind. We have done this to ourselves.

We value 30-second commercials, the quick fix, the fast car, sharp clothes and short articles to read. Great books, well-crafted plays or movies and in-depth public discussion of issues are poorly read and attended, at best. We don't seek to embrace the challenge of a deeper meaning or question why. It takes too much time and effort.

Now our economy is in the tank and politics are more divided than ever.

Our businesses and government don't inspire the hard-work ethic; it is an "I got mine, what-are-you-looking-at society." I want to hear and see the public, businesses, newspapers, governors, mayors and our president encourage greater pride in student learning. Start reminding everyone on the TV, newspapers, public discussion, on fancy company letters, how important it is to be with your child.

Our parents need to set higher expectations for learning. We cannot be satisfied allowing TV, cellphones or CDs to be the best way for kids to spend so much of their free time anymore. The very people who are critical of public schools are too silent, except at election time, or when a house sale or major business deal has school as part of its sales pitch.

The public-school system is good when everyone is behind it all the time.

Right now, people are only behind school when it is convenient. If these places we call schools are so important at election time, then why are the classrooms and their teachers rarely visited or asked for input, except by parents. Stop blaming the teachers and start asking what are you doing? Jump in.

-- Jim Thompson, Kent

We need fresh thinking

Here are some suggestions on how to handle the budget crisis in higher education.

Cut art history, philosophy, American studies, music therapy, communications, dance, English literature, Latin, film, religion, psychology, sociology, etc. Those subjects can be taught in private, religious, arts and philosophical schools. Most people with those degrees don't get a job in their field of study anyway. Instead, they could forgo college and get a head start on their careers.

Also, cut sports.

Let's give our students real opportunity. Higher education needs to adapt to the challenges we face: energy independence, global warming and world poverty. To do this, bolster the sciences, medicine, law, business,
education and engineering. This will also help us to be more competitive against strong emerging markets around the world.

The world needs technological breakthroughs. Change is difficult, but hope lies in the courage to make necessary changes in the face of adversity. We need fresh thinking and bold action.

-- Kevin Wright, Shoreline

Read between the audit lines

I read in Sunday's Seattle Times, regarding the state budget cuts recommended by Gov. Christine Gregoire, that the performance audits prescribed by Initiative 900 be sliced out ["Gregoire looking at massive state budget cuts," News, Nov. 30].

I realize the audits are budgeted at $27 million but they have shed light on more wasted money. I have read each audit and these are vital to assisting in actually getting a handle on the state budget.

Here are a few examples from the audits: collection of state debt, $15.6-$160 million in one-time savings; Department of Transportation results wrap-up, engrossed substitute Senate Bill 6839, $27 cost savings for every $1 spent on the audit; Department of Transportation, highway maintenance and construction, 34 recommendations resulting in potential cost savings and unnecessary expenditures of $41.9 million; Port of Seattle, construction management, 51 recommendations resulting in $97 million unnecessary costs; Department of Transportation, administration and overhead, 11 recommendations resulting in $96.9 million over five years.

These examples demonstrate the need for the audits and for our state Legislature to start enacting many of the recommendations.

-- Todd Welch, Everett

No-brainer on health-care premiums

Are you kidding me? In this day and age of tough economic times and the huge budget cuts facing the state of Washington, this is a no brainer to me ["Should King County workers share the cost of health premiums?," News, Nov. 28].

It is unbelievable that county workers have 100 percent of their health-care premiums paid for themselves and their dependents, no matter how many children they have. There are few companies in the private sector that have this benefit anymore.

Our tax dollars are going to pay for better benefits for county employees than what you can get in the private sector. The more children you have the better your benefit package is.

It is time to level this playing field permanently.

Let's get with the times and trim this budget where it should be trimmed.

-- Diane Stuvland, Kenmore

Health care starts here

The state of Washington faces a health-care crisis greater than our budget deficit. Gov. Christine Gregoire and the Democratic Legislature provided funds for 80,000 children to get health insurance. Meanwhile 46 million Americans have no health insurance.

Facing a $4.1 billion deficit, there will be pressure to cut funding for children's health care. Children are not the future of this state -- they are the present. Quality education requires healthy students. Employers need educated workers. So it is only natural that the governor and Legislature should fully fund health care for all children and work with the President-elect Barack Obama administration and Congress to reform our health-care system.

If the GOP blocks health-care reform again, that party will have destroyed the American economy and outsourced U.S. health care to Korea and Thailand, where surgical operations are affordable.

-- Thomas Karwaki, Seattle

Taxing is not the only way

Why is it our politicians feel the need to cut essential programs to force tax increases instead of looking at innovative approaches to funding increases ["Gregoire looking at massive state budget cuts," Politics, Nov. 30]. Not all funding has to come from taxes.

How about advertising naming rights for schools, gyms and all athletic stadiums at each school that has them? Sell advertising billboards along the fences and walls of these same stadiums, like they do at Safeco or Qwest Field. Open up schools to advertising in creative ways, such as school clothes sponsored by various companies.

Eliminate school-operated lunchrooms and sell food-court rights to serve students. You can do this by setting reasonable health standards and fixed costs that vendors will meet if given enough school access for volume sales.

Increase the number of vending machines and charge more, providing a product line approved by the School Board. How about eliminating books and going to online materials that students can access from home? Kids don't take books home anyway because there aren't enough for each student, so they leave them in school and share them. Most of today's kids are more savvy at the Internet anyway.

Rent out school facilities on weekends or at nights when possible to organizations and groups that will pay for usage. Do a transportation study and provide passes and maximize usage of mass-transit buses for high-school students instead of providing school buses for routes that are well-serviced. There is no need to add thousands of dollars of cost to students and families, just start thinking more creatively.

-- Art Francis, Issaquah

Now is the time to increase funding

Washington state's constitution specifically outlines its paramount duty is to fund public education. With the knowledge that voters overwhelmingly passed Initiative 732 and Initiative 728, it is extremely disconcerting that The Seattle Times would propose that we cut teacher pay and increase class size ["In tough times, suspend education initiatives," editorial Nov. 26].

How many times do we need to list the cold hard facts: Washington state is 47th in the nation for class sizes, teacher pay is the lowest on the West Coast and far below the national average, and over the years many research reports and think tanks have said smaller classes and higher teacher salaries improve the quality of education.

The answer is quite simple: Even in hard economic times, we need to be working on improving teaching and learning in our state, and the baseline is class size and teacher pay.

As a teacher gains experience, just like a doctor or lawyer, he/she is also learning. Problems or challenges become easier to anticipate. There are more tools in his/her tool belt to assess learning and reteach, modify or increase instruction in particular skill sets. This information can then be passed to newer colleagues entering the field.

What is happening in education is a type of brain drain. Because of the high stress, huge workload and extremely low pay, teachers leave their field, their passion, to keep their families functioning. It is easy to criticize teachers and believe the myth that they are greedy and lazy. But there are few other professional and governmental jobs where pay is not guaranteed and workload continually increases without compensation.

Because we have a system that encourages a revolving-door type scenario, stability and knowledge are lost.

People also criticize the public-school system for students who fall through the cracks. There is always this wonderment of why someone could not learn to read by the time he/she gets to high school. The basic answer is quite simple: The larger the crowd, the easier it is to hide. When education is cut, supplementary services are cut. Even when learning issues are discovered, there could be very few options or tools available to the students, parents and teachers. When class sizes are smaller, it is easier to identify learning issues, and have the time to individually address the situation. Behaviors or attendance issues are dealt with at a faster rate. There is more time for a teacher to communicate with parents. There is nowhere for a student to hide.

Everyone wants to keep his piece of the pie when cuts have to be made. It is up the people and lawmakers to make these decisions. Budget items need to be prioritized. Washington state started this list a long time ago. The citizens and lawmakers understood the necessity of having a well-educated population. So they put it in the state constitution. It is our paramount duty to fund public education.

In the last few years, there has been some movement forward. We need to remain firm in our beliefs and not try and solve the budget problem with what seems to be a quick and easy fix. Education money needs to remain and continually be increased, even in hard economic times.

-- Melissa Metzger, Seattle

Way too late

Children are our most important responsibility. They are the future. The knowledge required for Seattle (and our nation) to thrive in the global economy is already jeopardized by our broken education system.

The two initiatives you recommend suspending (better pay for teachers and reducing class sizes) are too little and very late, but at least they begin to tackle education problems. Our future is worth a lot more than the $1.45 billion you claim can be saved.

Shame on you and shame on us if we continue to relegate children and their education to the "good times." We are surrounded with the results of such "good-time" thinking: rundown school buildings, students who can't pass basic tests, teachers on food stamps and classrooms without text books.

-- Loretta Jancoski, Issaquah

Education is more important

The problems that face our society can never be fixed as long as we continue to value entertainment over education.

Instead of trying to lure another mediocre NBA franchise to Seattle, let's focus our efforts on keeping schools from closing and paying teachers a yearly salary that is more per year than what they owe for student loans.

Instead of shifting the 1 percent hotel tax (which is currently paying off the convention center) to generate $75 million in order to upgrade KeyArena, why don't we shift it to generate $75 million for education?

Or better yet, If Steve Balmer and his apostles of American capitalism really want to do something of value for their local community and region, they should take the $150 million that they have pledged to upgrade KeyArena, and use it to upgrade the educational system. Maybe then they would see some quality returns on their investment in the long run.

It's worth a shot considering we already have a pretty good idea about the kind of returns a middling professional sports franchise yields.

-- Ryan Malone, Duvall

Wave goodbye to three strikes

What an excellent idea in your Sunday, Nov. 23 editorial, suggesting Washington state repeal the three strikes and parole some prisoners convicted under that law ["Legislature, governor must find $5 billion in spending cuts without raising taxes"]. Not only would that save $90,000 per year for each incarcerated person, but would also end unnecessarily harsh sentence guidelines.

The three-strikes law has not been effective in deterring crime. Instead it has landed many nonviolent people who have committed petty thefts in prison for many more years than those committing violent acts. Let's spent a fraction of the incarceration costs on drug counseling and job training.

-- Ruth Yarrow, Seattle

Get in the spirit

Editor, The Times:

The likelihood that our higher-education system will not escape serious funding reductions should not necessarily result in reductions in enrollment and class offerings ["20% cuts may be ahead for state colleges, universities as bottom falls out of budget," News, Nov. 23]. This may be just the opportunity needed to call about the nascent volunteer spirit in our citizenry that President-elect Barack Obama's election has evoked.

There are likely many former faculty members living near colleges at which they once taught that would, if invited, come back to teach on a part-time, unpaid basis. Although still physically and intellectually active, they've hit the state's mandatory retirement age of 70. They would neither need nor expect a salary since most will have an adequate retirement income. And my guess is that they would enjoy the challenge of re-engaging with students even if for the short-term -- until we work our way out of the financial predicament.

Similarly, there are probably many exceptional people who have retired from professional careers who could be recruited to teach in their disciplines.

Given the increasing demand for classroom seats, the colleges and universities of this state need to maintain an open-door policy. Those filled seats represent the human capital on which the state's future clearly depends.

-- Dick Nelson, Seattle

This won't help

As a senior in high school, I am in the thick of applying to colleges and universities and anxiously awaiting their decisions. Nick Perry's Nov. 23 story about the proposed tuition increases and budget cuts was alarming for me and was cause for concern on a local and national level.

The cuts would lead to fewer faculty and resources, a tuition increase and lower acceptance rates. The combination of an all-time high in enrollment and applications as well as a decrease in funding leads to a truly awful mix.

I was in complete agreement with University of Washington director of state relations, Randy Hodgins, when he was paraphrased saying, "higher-education officials need to explain to the public the opportunities that might be lost should higher education languish."

It is counterproductive to reduce educational opportunities for state residents. This is a national problem. The California state university system faces budget cuts and a need to reduce enrollment by a total of 10,000 students statewide. It will be damaging to close doors on many people's shots at higher education.

-- Emuna David, Seattle

It's time for an income tax

Dear Gov. Christine Gregoire and Washington state Legislature:

Lower-middle-class voter here. Congratulations on being re-elected. Now, please do the honorable thing, the right thing, the responsible thing. Fall on your own swords and implement a state income tax. It's probably true that your elected careers will be over, and full disclosure forces me to admit that in this economy you will have a hard time finding new jobs. But we need you to do this.

I cannot spend money I do not have anymore just to fill the state coffers with sales-tax receipts. Truthfully, I feel like we all overconsume and it's not good for the planet.

I don't want higher education, health care for poor families and classroom size determined by how much I spend at the mall. So please, cut all the wasteful spending, see if you can give us a break on the sales tax, and seize this moment for change.

Think of it as tough love, because the case for why we need a state income tax has never been clearer.

--Carol Mabbott, Seattle

Not over yet

The monstrous federal bailout gets bigger every day, with insurance companies demanding money first, then banks, then GM, Ford, Chrysler, the state of California, some 60 cities -- and now even one of the guys I work with wants a billion dollars. The money we are throwing at this problem shows absolutely no sign of doing any good.

Politicians are all afraid to be the first one to tell the American public the truth: Those banks, insurance companies and a thousand more like them are far more bankrupt than you could ever dream, and thus throwing them money keeps the CEOs employed, but is totally worthless for all other tasks.

They haven't lent a dollar bill to the public yet.

Some of President George W. Bush's economic advisers estimate that the top nine banks and insurance companies bet and lost some $63 trillion on credit-default swaps. Those are the secretive "bad assets" that everyone talks of, but no one will list. They owe that money to someone. And we are foolish enough to try to clean their books with a microscopic amount like a $700 billion bailout? That is 1/90th of what they need.

There is not enough bailout money on the planet to fix this problem, so we continue this charade of throwing a billion here and there just to show Americans Congress is doing "something."

Be realistic for a moment. Is it conceivable that barely 5 percent of Americans who just might default on their mortgages could wreak this much havoc on the entire world monetary system?

One of Bush's advisers said we cannot fix this unless we invent 100 "clean" banks -- two per state -- and give them the bailout money. Every existing bank must be suspected of being bankrupt, so even honest banks won't loan to other banks for fear of losing the money they still possess. These 100 "clean" banks would lend only to the public -- problem solved.

Why are GM, Chrysler and GE in such a mess? Because they fired their engineers when Bush was elected and hired loan sharks. They have lost untold billions trying to lend money at usurious rates.

They borrowed $60 billion two months ago, got $25 billion last month and now want $50 billion more. It is possible that the entire $700 billion might not even be enough to cover GM, Chrysler and GE's true losses, much less fix the economy as a whole.

Bush has it wrong. These crooks are not too big to fail. They are so big and owe so much money that in the long run, we cannot save our country and our financial system unless they do fail.

-- Leon Howell, Spokane

The world will keep on turning

It is a slippery slope that the American government is climbing by investing tax money into publicly traded corporations.

The basics of economics teaches that risk premium is one of the considerations when calculating the value of an asset. If the government steps in to remove the risk, then how can our economic model continue? Is corporate bankruptcy a bad thing?

A historical example is when Pan Am (the airline) was on the verge of going under. The call at the time said that Pan Am had to be saved at all costs, or it would be too devastating for the American airline industry. Well Pan Am went under and the world kept turning. They said the same thing about deregulating the airline industry. The industry was deregulated and the world kept turning.

So why is it a bad thing that Ford, GM and Chrysler file for bankruptcy? It gives the automakers a chance to reorganize, it provides each with protection from (and a fair amount of latitude to negotiate with) lenders and unions. It provides each an opportunity to slim down and emerge more competitive. Most important, it forces them to deliver a workable plan to a bankruptcy court to demonstrate that each has a viable way to emerge from bankruptcy.

The same logic applies to all of the financial institutions clamoring for money. We have a mechanism for dealing with the issue. It's called the bankruptcy system and it should be employed now more than ever.
In 2005, Congress debated and passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act to hold individual Americans more financially responsible. Now, three years later, Congress ignores the very same rules it passed to open up its taxpayer-funded checkbook so it can bail out the very same corporations that asked for this act because they contended that the average American was abusing the bankruptcy system.

The only two words I can think of to describe this scenario are ironic and despicable.

-- Richard Murphy, Kent

Do the math

UAW [United Auto Workers] average compensation is less than $70/hour as some have contended. Media Matters for America reports autoworkers base pay is about $28/hr, health care $6/hr, pension $7/hr, totaling $41/hr. The difference is the added expense for pension and heath-care costs for retired workers.
The person on the line does not benefit from this.

The falsity perpetrated in the press is an attack against working people who are among the most productive in the world, and who, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, contribute a value-added worth of $206/hr.
The labor cost per vehicle is about $2,400, including direct, indirect and salaried labor representing 8.4 percent of the typical $28,451 price of a new vehicle in 2008. The vast majority of costs include transport to dealer, sale prep, design, engineering, marketing, raw materials and executive compensation.

UAW members have a common vision of the middle class, shared sacrifices and rewards. Making them or any members of our society a scapegoat only further divides us and harms our resolve to recover and deliver social justice to all our citizens.

This must stop. To do otherwise is to surrender to the politics of hate and fear.

-- Brian Grad, Bremerton

We're just pawns

Lets take a trip down memory lane.

In my 80 years, I remember when the oil, rubber and auto companies were monopolies that forced the streetcars out of business. The courts found them guilty and fined them $5,000 to break the monopoly, so they say.

But the oil companies don't want the auto companies to increase the miles per gallon on their vehicles. It would cut into the oil company's profit.

Let's just jump to 1973. Remember the gas shortage? We could buy only 5 gallons of gas at a time, no fill-ups. Then came the story of two immigrants from Hungary -- a father and son. The story was printed in The Seattle Times. They invented a carburetor that would give any car 50 miles per gallon. They then got in touch with the auto companies, who bought their carburetor and the prints. They then destroyed both the carburetor and the prints.

So what does that tell you?

It tells me that the oil and auto companies are holding us prisoners and the government can't do anything about it.

-- Paul Katocs, Fall City

Just empty space

The demise and impact of Washington Mutual, while tragic to the staffers and their families, is not comparable to the legacies of the big players in the Washington state banking world ["WaMu's historic and tragic legacy," editorial, Nov. 21].

The lead banks mentioned in your editorial, Seafirst and Rainier, were giants and not just in Seattle but throughout the state. There was not a single community in the state that did not have at least one of the branches of these two homegrown banks. Both banks were involved and influential within our state by a slow, steady growth lasting more than 100 years. They were deeply involved in both business and community support everywhere they were located.

And while the administrative and executive functions have long since disappeared, the branches and many of the ex-Rainier and Seafirst people are still here and still contributing.

WaMu, on the other hand, was a puny little S&L [savings and loan] with a small staff and little or no wide-reaching community impact. That is, up until 15 or so years ago when they went on an acquisition spree fueled by greed and managed under a cloak of avarice.

All of that growth occurred outside of Washington state. Even though WaMu located the executive offices and administrative support in Seattle, it was really an out-of-state bank. Less than 15 percent of the branch network and customer base was located in Washington. The bank's primary banking charter was issued in California and more than 75 percent of WaMu's customers were located in California, Texas, Florida and New York.

Many of the staffers located in the Seattle area were from other parts of the country, relocated here during the administrative-staff explosion that occurred in the early part of the decade. Many of those people will be laid off and will return to wherever they came from, caring little if jobs return to Seattle.

So I say to WaMu, good riddance, you've been a bad corporate citizen and you've broken the hearts of a lot of people who came to expect more. The culture at Seafirst and Rainier was to give back to the community; the culture at WaMu was to increase the value of stock to enrich the shareholders.

The local impact of the demise of corporate WaMu will be negligible, discounting, of course, a lot of empty office space.

-- Bill Anderson, Auburn

All in special interests

As Washington Mutual is about to lay off thousands of high-tech employees in Seattle, we see a story in the paper about how there is no smoking gun to support the claims of conspiracy about the failure.

Then I hear about Citigroup being in exactly the same position as Washington Mutual, yet they are given billions by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson -- no FDIC takeover or fire sale of the company like Washington Mutual.

This leads one to wonder why Washington Mutual was seized and Citigroup is allowed to continue. One could speculate that it is acceptable to leave Northwest shareholders with worthless stocks but not Bush family friends, the Saudi Royal Family who are majority shareholders of Citigroup.

-- Michael Barr, Sammamish

Keep it accessible

That's it, rob the future taxpayers to pay for the current government's incompetence. Sunday's front-page story about 20 percent cuts to higher education was alarming ["20% cuts may be ahead for state colleges, universities as bottom falls out of budget," Nov. 23].

Without the next generation of well-paid, taxpaying citizens, the current generation is in big trouble when it comes time for those Social Security checks to show up in the mailbox.

Budget cuts in the area of education seem to undermine the sustainability of this state's economy. In the job market, a college education isn't a golden ticket to getting a job that will pay a mortgage, buy a used car and keep one's family fed and clothed. It's a requirement. Undermining young people's ability to compete in future job markets by making education inaccessible flies in the face of logic.

Education should be this state's No. 1 priority. It is the only way we are going to ensure economic sustainability. Otherwise, let's just ship jobs out now to other countries in the world that make education a priority. While we're at it, let's turn all the universities into soup kitchens because that's the only way our parents are going to eat without our future tax dollars to help them when they can't work anymore.

-- Justin Craig, Seattle

Rotten to the core

The economic debacle in which the U.S. "suddenly" finds itself is the result of the largest migration of wealth since the depression. This has been the long-term goal of many within our government via lobbyists' cash.

And now they wonder why no one is buying homes, cars, appliances, etc.

The answer is that they got rid of the middle class, which is the backbone of all countries.

They wanted tax breaks for outsourced U.S. jobs and those remaining to be part-time with no benefits: no medical, no pension and certainly no unions.

It has become a slave ship and the extremely wealthy enriched themselves beyond their dreams. We are seeing what "trickle down economics" is really like.

Congrats, your agenda is now bearing its fruit and is rotten to the core.

And for those who are white-collar workers and thought themselves totally immune, welcome to the new world order. Who will you manage now with your office or factory overseas or closed?

-- Bruce Richards, Sammamish

Won't last forever

Paul Krugman, the major media and most financial analysts do not recognize the problem that has caused our current economic downturn ["Coping with a lame-duck economy: Can we afford two months of policy drift?" syndicated column, Nov. 21]. That problem has been unjustified debt. This has been manifested by the government, financial entities that have profited by the unjustified indebtedness of our citizens, who cannot support their home mortgages, cannot pay off their credit card or student-loan debt and -- in the case of small businesses – cannot pay off their loans.

This harsh correction has been long overdue. Bailouts only prolong the inevitable economic collapse by encouraging those who misbehave financially to continue to misbehave financially.

The best economic stimulus that President-elect Barack Obama could propose is for our government to act as a responsible role model for a change. The support of the current situation by well-managed companies and responsibly behaving, hardworking citizens cannot last forever.

-- Bob Dorse, Seattle

Time for a complete overhaul

We have it in our power to change everything, if we can change ourselves. The United States is where the greatest minds wish to be born, for Americans see a new world where others see catastrophe.

Don't bail out corporations. Who needs them? Think outside the boxes of capitalism and socialism. Create something fresh: a synergy of federal government and local entrepreneurs.

We should own our health care, education, energy and transportation, administered by elected representatives in government, while subcontracting the work to privately owned local businesses, green and sustainable.

Who needs cars? Replace them with high-speed public cabs on solar-powered rail lines. Dial one on your blackberry; within minutes it stops near your home. Tell its computer your destination, then sit back and watch a movie.

Don't be anxious about medical bills and prescriptions. Replace them with health. Use preventive self care such as meditation, exercise, nutrition, music, laughter and clean air to cure diseases before they arise.

Because we fear death, the highest medical expense is end-of-life care. But as spiritual beings, we can die gracefully in low-cost hospices run by volunteers.

Home-school. Replace expensive residential colleges with online education. Restore the dignity of manual skills through apprenticeship. One wise mentor eliminates a whole bureaucracy.

Save trillions: Abolish armies. Let all countries contribute to one international peacekeeping force. Teach children that war is obsolete, inefficient and beneath their dignity.

Welcome crisis as infinite possibility. A door closes; a hundred windows open. Above all, nourish imagination. America doesn't just happen: you dream it.

-- Fred LaMotte, Steilacoom

Buy 'em up

Rather than just throwing good money after bad in an auto-industry bailout, how about creating a guaranteed market for high-tech, environmentally appropriate cars, like 50+ mpg diesels and biofueled, plug-in hybrids?

With a government guarantee, the auto manufacturers and their suppliers and creditors would have certainty that they will realize a return for building 21st-century designs.

The proposed $25 billion could pay for or finance the purchase of 2 million $25,000 cars. (Requiring open-market sales ensures that the product meets the market test.) Two million cars is not insignificant; annual U.S. auto sales have been around 16 million per year, but are dropping fast. The proceeds from sales or financing could be recycled to provide multiyear support.

-- Robert Redmayne, Seattle

Let's weigh our priorities

Every 10 weeks another $25 billion goes down the drain in Iraq. And people want to complain about wasting that same amount bailing out the automakers? At least we have a chance to recoup that investment.

Shoring up an industry that 2 million American jobs rely on is a risk we can afford; flushing $25 billion every 10 weeks is not.

If the carmakers have trouble paying us back, why not just leave Iraq 10 weeks earlier than whatever future a deadline calls for and be happy?

-- Thad McManus, Hansville

Cut Emmert's pay

Concerning University of Washington President Mark Emmert announcing that he will forgo a raise in his very substantial annual compensation of $905,000, let us consider what could happen if he took a significant pay cut, rather than freezing his salary ["UW, WSU presidents' salaries affected by budget crunch," News, Nov. 21].

Perhaps he will reconsider and instead voluntarily reduce his salary to only $205,000 -- still a substantial level of pay, more than 10 times above the minimum wage. What could be done with the $700,000 saved?

Assuming professors make $70,000, Emmert's pay cut could fund 10 professors. If we assume that a support person makes $40,000 per year, then Emmert's $700,000 pay cut could save 17 positions. And if we consider how many minimum-wage positions could be saved with a $700,000 pay cut, Emmert could save 41 people from the unemployment lines. Even the poverty of a minimum-wage job is better than no job at all.

What will Emmert say to the families affected by the looming layoffs?

-- Jim Thomas, Seattle

Question his priorities
Given the University of Washington's massive budget shortfalls, I'm appalled that UW President Mark Emmert thinks he's doing us a service by waiving an increase in his $905,000 salary.

If you add up the combined amount made by our state's governor, attorney general, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, treasurer, auditor and insurance commissioner, it still doesn't equal Emmert's total. I know that Emmert has raised a lot of money and that his salary and the $700,000 made by his WSU [Washington State University] counterpart Elson Floyd (before a $100,000 voluntary pay cut), are set by the Board of Regents. But given that Emmert's salary equals almost a tenth of the $10 million cuts that will otherwise require laying off professors, turning away students or cutting key services, it's unseemly, to the say the least. If Emmert requires that amount to stay, then I'd question his priorities.

I have a proposal: I'd like to cap Washington state higher-education salaries so that no one makes more than our governor, who currently earns $166,891, and somehow manages to make ends meet.

Given that this couldn't go through instantly, I'd like to challenge Emmert, Floyd and every other employee of our higher-education system who makes more than that amount to donate the excess back, at least for this time of crisis.

Yes, Emmert would have to live on that $166,891 pittance, plus major benefits and $340,000 a year from serving on corporate boards.

Our system's football coaches and senior vice presidents might have to live more modestly as well. But it would make a significant difference in the lives of the faculty, staff and students who'd otherwise be laid off or excluded. And imagine the example it would set in reminding us all that education should be about learning and service, not greed.

-- Paul Loeb, Seattle

King County's getting there

Keith Ervin's story in the Nov. 22 Seattle Times about the King County budget process is a great example of how government should work. My hat goes off to King County Council budget chair Larry Phillips and the budget committee for taking King County Executive Ron Sims' "slash and burn" budget and creating a compromise that recognizes government's responsibility to protect the public interest in circumstances where we cannot protect ourselves.

This budget is still far from perfect but at least there is a glimmer of social responsibility with this relatively modest, responsible expenditure that provides the most basic support for those families and individuals who have nowhere else to turn.

-- Dan Labriola, Seattle

Move it along, Olympia

Finally suggestions to close the $5 billion state budget gap ["Legislature, governor must find $5 billion in spending cuts without raising taxes," editorial, Nov. 23]. I believe one of the biggest failings of any government -- federal, state and local -- is the lack of explaining exactly where and how tax dollars are spent. There never seems to be an annual accounting to the public of how their tax dollars are allocated.

But Sunday's editorial succinctly outlined reasonable options to solve our budget crisis. Although these ideas will be challenged by various constituencies, I hope the Legislature moves forward with these suggestions.

-- Jane Ramsay, Bellevue

School's not just a day care

Your [Sunday editorial on the state budget] revealed the editorial board's collective misunderstanding of modern public education with just two words: "nonteaching days." This was how you justified cutting math and science learning-improvement days to your readers.

Your deliberate parenthetical inclusion of this comment implies that taxpayers get less value for their money when students aren't in the classroom. If you expect day care only, this would be true.

I'm not a science teacher, and I don't know how those days have been used, but your justification for the cuts was poor and uninformed. And unfortunately, you are perpetuating a popular misconception that serves as one of the bigger hurdles in American education.

Many other countries, at least the ones that are the object of our envy because of their public schools, give their teachers significantly more time to meet with parents and students (customer service), grade assignments (performance assessment), collaborate with colleagues (strategic planning) and plan, review and revise curriculum (research and development).

None of this can be done when there are 34 students to supervise in the classroom.

Trying to get students engaged in a lesson is important (sales), but your editorial board should stop feeding the myth that this alone will give us a good product.

-- Stephen Nolet, Suquamish

Big Oil owes us

Dear senators,

I suggest that it would be eminently fair to exploit the symbiotic relationship between the auto manufacturers and Exxon et al by having the latter provide any bridge loans required.

Big Oil can certainly afford it better than we taxpayers. And if one were to view the automakers and the oil companies as a single entity, one could easily say that we have already made our significant contribution via the recent obscene profits of those oil and gas folks.

-- Lee Trousdale, Mercer Island

Join together now

The CEOs of Ford, Chrysler and GM, seemed to make a collective point that bankruptcy is off the table because consumers would never buy a car from a bankrupt company ["Big Three get more time to make case," News, Nov. 21].

I suggest the auto companies form a company by all three that would provide one service warranty to their buyers -- similar to the concept of extended warranties consumers can purchase. The work would be performed by the service departments of existing dealerships of their particular car. This entity could be insured by a respected insurance company to preserve its viability and give comfort to car buyers.

This way, a consumer could confidently buy a car even if the manufacturer is in Chapter 11. I would imagine there could be some economies of scale.

Another possible approach to our economic crisis would be to pull out an old concept used during World War II: the sale of war bonds to finance our current needs such as education.

If 100 million bonds were sold in varying denominations that would average $300 per bond, we could raise $30 billion. The good thing is the people would be part of the solution and feel they are making a contribution to our country and their grandchildren.

--Walt Winrow, Seattle

Wise up

I believe that the Puget Sound region needs a shoppers' revolution against poor customer service. I'm sure that President-elect Barack Obama won't mind my saying, "Yes we can [demand customer service]."

Very soon after moving here from the upper Midwest in 1984, my wife and I sensed a dire need for an upgrade in customer service in the stores we visited.

In the ensuing 24-year period, I've not been heartened in the least. Most offensive are those companies whose TV and print ads promise "warm and friendly employees" and totally fail to deliver on that promise.
One medium-sized chain of grocery stores has consistently proved infuriating, no matter which of their stores I have visited.

When our four children were still living at home, I was the primary grocery shopper. At least twice I left full grocery carts and exited one of their stores in disgust. Would it have been asking too much to have at least one employee make eye contact and give me a friendly "Hello, sir"?

I despise being treated as an aggravation or a "thing" rather than as a human being who is offering to contribute to the paycheck of everyone in that store.

I agree that it is possible to overly attempt to engage retail customers. Many shoppers feel uncomfortable being approached so often that they feel stalked and pressured rather than simply greeted warmly.

Please, retailers, simply allow your employees to show genuine human warmth, and don't ask them to fulfill some kind of measurable formula for customer contact. That is also insincere and offensive, easily sensed and not appreciated.

I work in a customer-service capacity on the Eastside. And I believe that my customers would attest that I practice what I preach. My goal is to treat every store guest with dignity. I'm amazed that customers are so pleased by the service I give them. It's simply the way business should be transacted.

During this difficult time for many retail businesses, warm, caring associates are absolutely vital to store after store hanging on until the economy improves. Retailers, please either upgrade your training or rotate your staff to ensure a positive shopping experience for your increasingly precious clientele.

We, as shoppers, need to make our voices heard. If a company has a Web site with a "contact us" link, use it. If the company has comment cards, fill them out and send them in. If a store or a specific employee or department has served you well, let the company know that, too.

We need not, with our "power of the ever-scarcer dollar" settle for cold, inefficient service from the stores we choose to patronize. More open forums might put spotlights on offending stores and companies. Even more letters like this one might put employers and their employees on notice: "Change is coming in the retail world. We will no longer support businesses whose employees treat us customers indifferently, rudely, or coldly."

-- Dave Ryynanen, Edmonds

However will he survive?

Editor, The Times:

I'm overwhelmed by the generosity of UW [University of Washington] President Mark Emmert's offer to forego a pay raise this year in the face of a global recession and increases in tuition at the UW ["UW president won't take pay raise this year," Times, News, Nov. 21].

How in the world is he and his family going to be able to scrape by on just a $905,000 salary and $340,000 from his other positions? It's a darn good thing he doesn't have to pay for living in his mansion. We all should be humbled.

-- Stephen Nelson, Seattle

Start at the top

Why not start at the top and reduce the executives, administrators and professors salaries by 20 percent for the next two years. Salaries will be restored when there is a surplus.

I can't believe that King County Executive Ron Sims or UW President Mark Emmert would be significantly in trouble if their salaries were cut by 20 percent or more. After all of the top-level salaries are cut, then let's see where other cuts need to take place.

-- William Zersen, Bellingham

What are we becoming?

We are absolutely dismayed and outraged at Mayor Greg Nickels and the Seattle City Council's enormous proposed tax increases ["Nickels, City Council propose spending cuts, higher parking fees to meet budget shortfall," News, Nov. 7].

We are in our mid 80s, have lost more than half of our retirement income -- the remaining half of which is evaporating quickly. If Nickels and the Seattle City Council force these unaffordable increases on helpless citizens, we and hundreds like us could lose our homes.

They must re-examine their proposed budget. Police and fire protection must remain strong, but many more administrative jobs could be eliminated. Libraries, parks, public art, trees and shrubs along thoroughfares, $8.6 million dollars for the "missing link" to the Burke-Gilman Trail, etc. should be put on hold for now -- they are not essential.

The housing issue instigated by the mortgage fiasco has not yet run its course. By raising taxes and expenses on homeowners and renters, they run the risk of putting more homes in jeopardy and businesses defaulting. Non essentials must wait until the economy has had a chance to recover.

Water and garbage collection fees must remain untouched. If our elected officials fail to maintain basic services at their current level, they will betray the city of Seattle, and exclude all except the very wealthy from residing here.

-- Helen and David Belvin, Seattle

What else is new?

I read with interest The Seattle Times front-page story about the Snoqualmie Tribe's "big bet" on its I-90 casino ["Snoqualmie Tribe's big bet: the casino that almost wasn't," Nov. 2].

It reminded me of the years I had spent as a lawyer representing Alaska-native corporate interests after enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1976. The difference is that the Alaska Native Corporations were actually playing with their own money.

Your story talks about the Snoqualmie Tribe's rise from rags to potential riches in just 10 years; it describes a community effort directed at self-betterment and it dramatizes the enormous gamble of $375 million in borrowed money.

I am constrained to exclaim, "Only in America!" -- to coin the words of professional-boxing promoter Don King.

Quick and dirty research informs me that Bear Stearns [previously one of the largest global investment banks and securities trading and brokerage firms] underwrote $330 million of the debt in question, which expanded by another $45 million with the tribe's purchase of 1600 slot machines.

I can only guess that the tribe has already gleaned enormous benefits from our state and federal governments for having established a tribal identity in 1999 and undertaken this project, that it is gleaning other enormous benefits from private-industry interests and that the I-90 casino is now, and has always been, a "no-lose" proposition for the tribe.

Now, about that "big bet," "large gamble," "high-stakes venture" and the tribe's decision to "shoot the moon" on this project -- just what is the tribe's downside? And how is this any different from any other subprime risk we taxpayers are now having to assume?

-- Ramer Holtan, Mercer Island

Greg Gilbert / The Seattle Times

Sea-Tac's new, $1 billion runway spawned lawsuits, delays and a federal probe. United Airlines Flight 197 was the first airplane to land on the new runway.

Break out the Roundup

Editor, The Times:
Some things never go away ["As third runway opens at Sea-Tac, some seek a fourth," page one, Nov. 20].
The Port of Seattle wanted the third runway on their turf.

Snohomish County residents, despite the residential origin of demand in north King County and Snohomish County, accommodated the Port of Seattle's aspirations to externalize their costs to South King County.

The obvious resource for airport expansion was (and remains) McChord Air Force Base. However, McChord lies in Pierce County, so no control and no glory for Port of Seattle and much less construction work for local supporters.

With nudges from Rep. Norm Dicks and the rest of Washington state, Eastern Washington would have been giddy with visions of the military and civilian work force. That already exaggerated air-traffic growth will not be coming for a very, very long time.

If anyone still thinks the third runway was a good idea, I've got another surefire investment: WaMu. A better bet will be Roundup to keep the weeds down until those planes show up.

--Bill Duroe, Seattle

Quit dragging your heels

"Gregoire's panel looked at high-speed rail as an alternative to more in-state flights, but concluded it was not likely to supply relief by the 2030 planning target." ["As third Sea-Tac runway opens, some seek a fourth," page one, Nov. 20]

How shortsighted. If we plan for high-speed rail now, just like California voters approved recently, a fourth runway will not be needed.

Currently, there are more than 60 takeoffs and landings for Seattle-to-Portland flights every day, nearly 50 for Seattle-to-Spokane and more than 20 for Seattle-to-Vancouver, B.C. Most of these can be eliminated if travelers can get from downtown Seattle to Portland or Vancouver in one hour and to Spokane in under two hours.

The benefits of high-speed rail along the I-5 and I-90 corridors extend well beyond the need to expand Sea-Tac's capacity. Rail travel, with no greenhouse-gas emissions, is "green" travel. High-speed rail along heavily traveled corridors would reduce construction of more freeway miles.

Conversely, design and construction of rail lines provide tangible "green economy" jobs to Washington state, Oregon and British Columbia. And, should population and economic growth in future decades necessitate air-traffic capacity expansion, high-speed rail would make Bellingham and Moses Lake plausible "satellite airport" candidates.

--Leo Egashira, Seattle

Use what we've got

$57 million of my and other Americans' tax money says that the airport near Everett should be used for the purpose for which it was built.

But with all due respect to Paine Field, wouldn't it be appropriate for commercial planes to fly over Mukilteo to and from the newly renamed "Eyman Airfield"?

-- George Randels, Port Townsend

Air travel safety

3 oz. toothpaste, 3 oz. shampoo, 3 oz. lotion and 3 oz. Pepto-Bismol -- all zipped in a clear, quart-sized bag.
Shoes off, no gel-filled inserts allowed, but my 1 lb., gel-filled breast prosthesis is legal and doesn't have to be declared to the TSA [Transportation Security Administration] as I pass through security to board my plane?

Can't we get see the inconsistent irony of these ridiculous "safety" precautions that do nothing to make air travel safer? Enough already.

-- Kay Schellberg, Seattle

We're all getting old

America's labor movement needs to change the public's views of unions and their aims now while they still can.

The population is getting older, and this has drastic consequences for worker rights. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan announced that the growth rate of the working-age population is slowing from about 1 percent per year today to about .25 percent per year by 2035.

Thus, on top of the ever-declining union membership for the last 50 years, America will now have to deal with a declining labor pool. Couple that with an increasing need for high labor productivity across all industries and you're dealing with a strong business incentive to cut wages, benefits and vacation time to increase productivity in an increasingly capital-intensive economy at a time when real wages have stagnated since the 1970s.

And while the number of elderly in the U.S. grows, the falling numbers of workers will necessarily be taxed higher to support strained entitlement programs. America needs a revitalized labor movement that fights for the protection of its workers, a living wage and against employer discrimination.

Support your local union, because better days for the American worker have passed.

-- Michael Lang, Bellingham

Tim Sloan / AFP / Getty Images

United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, General Motors (GM) CEO Richard Wagoner, Jr., Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli and Ford Motor Company CEO Alan Mulally, left to right, wait to testify before the House Finincial Services Committee on Wednesday.

Spit out the razzle-dazzle

Editor, The Times:

The U.S. auto industry has a handful of gimme and a mouthful of Mustang razzle-dazzle, with continually increasing horsepower and falling miles per gallon ["Auto-industry bailout facing a rough road," Politics, Nov. 18]. If there is to be a federal bailout, it should be with the condition that fuel-efficient vehicles must be the priority.

The government cash should go to purchase stock in the companies, which is probably a pretty good bargain right now. Then the new administration will have added leverage to achieve its goals of combating global warming and moving this country toward energy independence.

-- Roger Lippman, Seattle

Demand better

I am against the idea of infusing cash into the automobile industry as it stands today. This is an industry that has historically shot itself in the foot with R&D, labor and marketing.

Who's to blame? The management and the unions, and to a lesser extent, we the consumers.

An infusion of taxpayers' cash without a complete restructuring of business practices is only the postponement of the inevitable. What is truly needed is for these companies to go through the bankruptcy process, which will force the restructuring they have avoided. Yes, countless suppliers will be hurt, jobs will be lost and social services will be strained. But in the long run, is it not healthier to take the hurt/pain now than just throw cash at them and hope they fix it?

The current management and union leadership will fight against such a process tooth and nail, only looking out for their own interests, which seem to be 180 degrees apart. But wouldn't it be better in the long run to make some cars than make absolutely none? Wouldn't it be better to keep your union members employed, even if it requires lower wages and benefits?

As consumers, we should demand an increase in the fuel-economy standards from our elected representatives. This would help reduce our dependence on imported oil. Forcing fuel-efficiency standards that set the bar high for cars and SUVs and pickups will spur innovation in design and technology.

Federal mandates for new technologies need to be ironclad, with no exceptions. Tax incentives need to be tied to production of new modes of powering vehicles and only be given when the minimum thresholds have been met -- no exceptions. Set strict percentage standards of new technology-powered vehicles to the total output and inside of that standard, percentages by type, across the board -- no exceptions. Set these new standards now with a due date no later than four years from now.

We should also take a look at what we've been buying. With multiple SUVs and pickups in every driveway, we have helped lead them down the path to where they are today. Our voracious appetite for bigger, stronger, faster needs to be tempered with a healthy dose of what do I need versus what I want.

In the long run the survival of these three companies and their multitude of suppliers will require a complete mindset change for everyone involved. It will be painful for almost everyone, but the end result will produce jobs, profits, a safer country and a cleaner environment.

-- Dave Herrington, Edmonds

Let's be winners

The automakers are asking for a $25 billion bailout.

If Congress wants to help the auto industry, the answer isn't to give them this money. The answer is to take the same $25 billion and pay the first $5,000 of a vehicle cost for the first 5 million Americans who purchase a new vehicle that is at least 50 percent manufactured in the U.S. from GM, Ford or Chrysler.

This way, Congress would help the automakers and their suppliers sell more vehicles, support workers, directly help individual Americans get safer transportation and boost consumer spending by encouraging purchases by consumers who might otherwise not have bought a car this year.

It's called win, win, win, win.

-- Christopher Hodgkin, Friday Harbor

Tonight's main attraction: greed

As California governor, Former President Ronald Reagan gave tax breaks to the very rich while raising the taxes on the middle class and made government lean by getting rid of such "unnecessary" expenses as taking care of the mentally ill, veterans included, thereby putting them on the streets of L.A. and other cities.

He gave little or no raises to state employees, warred with unions and stripped away regulations that were onerous to business, producing a situation in which corporations were unfettered and allowed to make up their own rules as to how businesses would run, without outside interference, setting in motion the start of a period of increasing greed.

Government was the problem, Reagan said, not the solution. Voters did not seem to be aware of Reagan's blatant attack to bankrupt the middle class. Then he became president and the stage was set for more of the same.

Is it any wonder that, with rules and regulations going by the wayside, corporations began giving huge bonuses and golden parachutes to top managers? Cheating had resulted in great profits.

To further increase the value of shares of company stock, unique accounting methods were employed.
Jane Bryant Quinn, well-known economist and financial adviser, warned that 40 percent of the S&P 500 used pro-forma accounting, such as Enron fraudulently used. The Enron implosion caused many corporations to restate their financial reports, with the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] monitoring the changes. Prison time ensued in several well-publicized cases.

All of the above showed financial institutions that they could increase share value by using shady tricks, although Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently said he thought they would be more "disciplined," not realizing greed was the headline attraction.

The economic disaster that we were finally made aware of came after Vice President Dick Cheney talked to furious Republicans and when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson laid out their case for an immediate $700 billion before stunned congressional leaders.

One stated the message was to do this immediately or watch a world economic meltdown. Russian President Vladimir Putin later said the U.S. put the world at great economic risk by selling poison-pill securities to world governments, such as China, Great Britain, etc.

$700 billion is just a drop in the bucket to the real cost.

Thanks Ronnie.

-- Max Don, Mukilteo

Thomas James Hurst / The Seattle Times

Property owned by West Marine, a longtime marine-supply business located on Mercer Street, is being condemned by the city, part of a long-range plan to widen and beautify the Street.

We must do better

Editor, The Times:

I am of the opinion that fixing the "Mercer mess" is a very questionable use of resources ["Council bets hopes on federal stimulus plan for Mercer," Times, News, Nov. 18].

Surely, we can see the handwriting on the wall. Lines at food banks are increasingly lengthy.
Homeless, including families with children, are scattered around our city, living in filth and danger.

Community health clinics are strapped for resources and losing ground every year. In every age range, folks are suffering.

How can we decide to leave potholes and bridges in disrepair and consider, even for a moment, fixing the "Mercer mess"? How can we ignore the needs of our people?

Our mayor pushes to make Seattle a "world-class" city.

I prefer a city that honors its citizens by providing housing, transportation, health care and other human services. That would make Seattle a world-class city -- not pandering to developers (and a mayor) who may want an easier route to South Lake Union and its amenities.

Wake up. We can and must do better.

-- Nancy Bryant, Seattle

Not so average

I appreciate that you have published a positive story during the economic downturn ["Average King County family 'pretty solid,'." News, Nov. 18].

However, you have neglected to emphasize an important detail that sets the Bentler family ahead of many that are not so "solid." They purchased their home eight years ago for about half of what it's worth today. Incomes have certainly not doubled in eight years.

Do you think the Bentler's could have afforded a $300,000 home eight years ago with their income? Not a chance.

Today, many two-income professional families starting their careers are priced out of owning such a "modest" home.

My wife and I make about $57,000 and we have a young child and a dog, much like the Bentlers. We live in an apartment because we cannot afford the mortgage payment required for today's home prices. Too many families live in communities where home prices are way out of alignment with incomes.

A rise in foreclosures and sluggish home sales are a symptom of this misalignment. A price correction in the housing market is badly needed. Who will they sell homes to if a whole generation of young professionals cannot buy them?

-- Glenn Kohler, Olympia

Let's be real

Since Oct. 31, 12 people have died from youth violence ["Seattle to spend more on homeless; garbage, water, parking rates to rise," News, Nov. 18].

For decades, suburbanites have had the nonchalant attitude, "this will not happen in my neighborhood." This attitude led adults to believe the deviant and criminal behavior of the youth will not negatively impact the upper echelon of society.

We have raised a generation of children with no awareness of self and who are unloving, uninvolved and uncaring. We call them misguided youth; you can only be misguided if you received improper guidance. We looked down upon the youth in disgust with their sagging clothes, crooked baseball caps and revealing clothing. I remember my days of the AJ jeans, cross colors, white T-shirts, khaki pants, the Kangol and the NWA blasting from my boom box on the back of the bus.

But today it is time to get off the fence, stop whining about how much things will cost, what programs we need to establish, what label to use and most important stop living in blind fear. What we should do -- at no cost -- when you see young men in their sagging clothing or young women in their revealing clothing, stop and look them in the eyes, say "Hello, how are you today?" -- instead of turning your head and looking down at the ground.

We should always show the youth with our words, deeds and a positive visions how great an asset to society they can become.

I grew up around pimps, drug dealers, hustlers and gang bangers. I needed a reality check and these young people need one as well.

We must show them what life looks like if they continue on their destructive path. Show them the lifeless bodies of the young people who have died from violence. They do not need to see those nonthreatening, prom-dance photos that we see in the media.

We need to show the courtroom photos of the bereaved parents passing out, screaming and yelling because of the eternal pain, deep sorrow and emptiness they suffer. Show them there is no glamour when a jury discloses their verdict and a judge's sentencing is real.

Show them the photos of children in their orange jumpsuits in chains at Echo Glen and the lonely, haunting and cold jail cells of Maple Lane with a community toilet and shower.

If all else fails, show them videos of McNeil Island or Monroe penitentiaries. Explain to them the staggering number of their high-school friends they thought were cool who are now or will become jobless, homeless, addicted or incarcerated.

The game is still the same; it is only fiercer.

-- Elder Wyatt, Seattle

Now more than ever

Today, you reported that Seattle will finance youth-violence prevention and social services for the homeless population on a two-year budget approval.

This is interesting because I recently began outreaching to the homeless population in San Francisco, and was wondering how Seattle, where I am originally from, helps the homeless. As a community member, I feel extremely optimistic that during this recession, the city still recognizes the importance of selflessness for others in greater need and is not going through budget cuts for social programs that are vital to our community.

What people don't realize is that because we are in a recession, more people will need to access food banks and other social services and that change takes time. Sure, we don't want to pay more for utilities or parking meters, but it's just like gas prices; we complained about how high they got but still drove anyway because we had to.

One thing that could really make a difference is better education about homelessness. I know many people who are quite ignorant about issues surrounding homelessness and as a result don't understand the need for funding of important programs.

-- Karen Hong, San Francisco, Calif.

They get what they can

One specific of The Times' informative gas-price story is hard to accept: "… because Eastern Washington can buy its gas from refineries in Utah and Alberta, which could have lower prices than the Seattle-area gas [from Western Washington refineries]" ["State gas prices lowest since February 2006," News, Nov. 12].

As Vice President-elect Joseph Biden recently said, "give us a break."

Gas doesn't come to Ellensburg or Othello in cross-state pipelines; it comes in tank trucks. Both are about 90 to 130 miles from Seattle, a two to three hour tanker drive, and surely only slightly more from some Yakima, Tri-City or Spokane distribution point.

An alert middle-school math and geography student could spot this fallacious excuse.
It's called "zone pricing" -- better labeled, "get what we can."

This reader was in Othello and Ellensburg for Veterans Day. Gas was $2.27 in Othello and, get this -- $1.95 at the Thorp-Ellensburg ARCO, the "refinery capitals" of the West, for regular grade.

-- Don Gulliford, Mercer Island

Not so much

So Thomas Karwaki thinks that all Americans need a strong union to get ahead ["Bring in the unions," Northwest Voices, Nov. 16]. The hilariously misnamed Employee Free Choice Act is not the way to go about doing that.

Karwaki fails to mention that the Free Choice Act also takes away an employee's right to a secret ballot in electing whether or not to start a union at his or her workplace. But the bosses behind big labor would never resort to thugs to bring errant thinkers into line, right?

After all, that has never happened in the past.

By the way, what are three of the most heavily unionized areas in the U.S.? Autos, airlines and education. I rest my case.

-- Brett Gaspers, Edmonds

Cut something else

The governor's budget-advisory panel has released recommended budget cuts this week. Those cuts propose eliminating community networks that operate under the guidance of the Family Policy Council.
Community networks exist throughout the state, were put into place by citizen vote, and function as the organizing entity for citizens to come together at the local level to reduce problem behaviors such as child abuse, youth suicide, violence and drug abuse.

Networks leverage funds and nearly countless volunteer hours for their communities. To eliminate such a program during this period of economic stress is foolish. Cutting the networks tells citizens they are not welcome at the governor's table. Gov. Christine Gregoire needs to ignore her panel on this one.

-- Rochelle Riling, Okanogan

More campaign rhetoric?

Under threat of the slowing economy, Gov. Christine Gregoire may be reassessing her earlier pledge to implement and fund a health-care program for small businesses called the Health Insurance Partnership [HIP]. The program essentially uses employee, employer and state funds to provide workers in small businesses with "Basic Health"-type coverage using a sliding scale.

Now, with growing uncertainty about the state's economy in the months ahead, there is talk that the money may no longer be available to implement the plan.

To even contemplate cutting it suggests that the program is not fully appreciated for how it would aid the state in weathering any economic storms that lay ahead. With a growing number of national businesses announcing large layoffs, it seems a clear priority to ensure the health of our state's economic backbone -- its small businesses.

Providing fair and affordable health care to our small businesses is one way to help inoculate this critical segment of our economy against a potential economic downturn, and would benefit the state budget in several ways: Lower health-care costs allow small businesses to retain more workers who can then continue to contribute to the state as taxpayers, rather than becoming unemployed recipients of government assistance; reduced health-care costs also reduce expenses and enable more businesses to remain in operation, providing employment and revenue for the state.

Then too, fewer workers without health care (who can't afford it) means fewer days lost to illness -- another savings to employers and the state. And we all know who picks up the bill for sick workers who show up at the hospital without insurance -- the state, and at a much-inflated price tab.

Unlike the federal Wall Street bailouts that paid for annual bonuses and golf junkets, the modest funding of the HIP program will pay dividends benefiting all of Washington.

-- Todd Putnam, Seattle

Tim Isbell / Biloxi Sun Herald / MCT

Coupon hunting is becoming more and more popular as the economy keeps heading south.

There is hope

Editor, The Times:

It boggles the mind to consider the possibility that life exist on "earthlike" planets deep in space ["Fuzzy photos raise hopes of finding another 'Earth'," Times, Nation & World, Nov. 14].

In light of this possibility, all craft departing for remote corners of the universe should display a simple message: "Anything Help$ -- God Bless."

-- Michael Darling, Burien

And they all fall down

Increasing AIG [American International Group] largesse from $85 billion to $150 billion provides evidence the bailout produces deception without solution. Terms enabling lending or investing, allows management, labor and government leaders to fabricate temporary shelters from market forces and voters.
Now car companies and states also queue up for bailouts.

Government institutions nationalizing private-sector firms feed addictions to power, equivalent to individual addictions to chemicals or pornography. Individuals exchange personal freedom for perception of material security, but only postpone the looming reckoning.

Proper government involvement means the Federal Reserve, in concert with Treasury and Justice, apply persuasion to private-sector firms. Brutal persuasion enables private companies to discover programs for market-clearing asset prices. They also form new companies absent flagging management and labor attributes.

Whatever financial cost the country must pay now to adhere to principle pales before the later cost incurred, if markets are forced to merely postpone consequences. True solutions reaffirm the inevitability of market forces countermanding human laws and incorporating risk within all economic activities.

Our Constitution says this country will promote the general welfare. It did not say the treasury secretary would ensure protection of home values, college funds, retirement accounts, life savings, homeownership, corporate wealth, political careers and union benefits.

-- Nolan Nelson, Eugene, Ore.

Blame the union

I want to voice my complete disgust in regard to any plan to bailout GM that does not nullify the existing and onerous UAW [United Auto Worker] contracts. If the automakers are the backbone of American manufacturing, then the UAW is what broke that backbone. Let them take major pay cuts for the way they drove GM and the rest of the Big Three into the ground with lavish benefits, pensions and hourly-pay packages that were obscene and drove jobs and market share to lower-cost foreign competitors. Our Big Three can't even produce a car people want to buy when times are good, and they have had 30 years to figure that one out.

They build SUVs and pickups because they can't make enough to support the union largesse building economy cars. That's the major reason they are stuck in this rut.

Let UAW workers make equivalent compensation to what Toyota and Honda pay American workers who produce better cars for far less money, and those workers are thrilled to have those jobs.

How can the Japanese build factories here, use American workers and still build vastly superior autos without UAW labor? Because the UAW is the key to the problem. There is no shortage of laborers who will accept less than the princely wages the UAW has extorted and who will do a far better job.

Don't let the UAW stick U.S. taxpayers with their bloated pension costs. I don't get a pension and resent Congress trying to stick me with that bill to curry favor for union voters.

There is only one way to make GM financially viable again, and that is to nullify those UAW contracts.

--Mark Kraus, Orting

Don't let them go down

I feel qualified to weigh in on the bailout for the Big Three automakers ["Questionable Bailout of America's Big Three," editorial, Nov. 14]. I worked for a year for Ford Motor Company as an electrician apprentice in the mid-1960s in Dearborn, Mich. I also worked as an auto mechanic, or tech, for several Volvo dealers, and was the owner of a Volvo repair garage for seven years. My career in auto repair spanned 30 years. I drag-raced Ford cars for many years, as well.

We cannot let the big three go bankrupt. Here's why: Who wants to buy a car from a company that might not be there tomorrow when you need a part? What might be the resale on such a vehicle?

Another reason to save the American auto industry is the "trickle-down" effect that will be felt once they go bankrupt. The smaller suppliers will see their main customers go away. They are also creditors of GM, Ford and Chrysler. They won't get paid money owed them. Next come the independent repair shops that service these cars. Some parts are original equipment manufacturer (OEM) only, and only come from the Big Three. Independent garages will not be able to service cars that need those OEM parts. They could go out of business or lay off employees.

How about the current owners of the domestic cars? What if you own a Chevy that needs a new cruise-control switch, and you find no one else but GM makes it? One day, even the bone yards will not even have a decent used one to sell you.

And lastly, do you think the retirees from those companies will still get full pensions, or could they wind up needing public assistance? Not only will current employees be without work, but they, and the companies themselves, won't be paying taxes.

Yes, these companies produced gas-guzzling cars and trucks, but that was because there was a demand for them from the American public. How many reading this have a truck or SUV and really don't need one? The Big Three make over $10,000 selling a truck to a dealer. They might make a tenth or fifth of that on a small car. Which would you manufacture and sell if you were running the company and had to account to shareholders? You (and they) can't predict the future for the next minute, let alone the next decade.
Bail them out with government oversight. The U.S. needs to be part owner as an investor.

But we can't, and shouldn't, let them fail.

-- Gary Silverstein, Olympia

Mmm, Spam

Couldn't help a little private smile and chuckle when reading about Spam being the meat of hard times ["Hard times usually good for the makers of Spam," Nation & World, Nov. 15].

A long time ago, when living in Hawaii where my late husband was born and raised, I found myself hopelessly bewildered one day while sitting at the table with him and several of his friends in a small restaurant.

One of the men had, among other things, what appeared to be an oversized sushi roll on his plate with something strange rolled up inside. I thought to myself, "didn't he order Hawaiian filet mignon?"

The young man must have caught my startled expression, because he promptly explained that it was the "local name" for Spam.

While I, the newcomer, felt embarrassed for obviously staring like a dimwit, the rest of the people all had a good laugh.

As time passed, I found out that Spam isn't half bad when used in a variety of "local" approaches.
So folks, if you want to save money and at the same time experience something a little different, prepare some oriental noodle soups like Top Ramen, wonton, ichiban or saimin, add some sliced green onions, a hard boiled egg and julienne Spam strips and, voilà.

For me it is an occasional change of taste and satisfies my sense of nostalgia.

Bon appetite.

-- Ruth Quiban, Seattle

Here come the tumbleweeds

What a clever idea. The economy has gone down the toilet, downtown merchants are scrambling to get more Christmas shoppers and Mayor McCheese [Greg Nickels] decides to raise the cost of parking a car downtown ["Nickels, City Council propose spending cuts, higher parking fees to meet budget shortfall," News, Nov. 7].

I'll bet that works really well.

Seattle city government has been making downtown less easy to use for 20 years and, like many others, I do my best to stay the heck out of there unless it is absolutely necessary or I can travel in a large group. I feel really sorry for the merchants who have invested money in building space and inventory to try to make a living down there.

And I don't even feel like I have a dog in this hunt anymore.
Goodbye Tuba Man. Happy Trails

-- Addison Double, Seattle