Put teachers back in the classroom

What frustrates the general public about teacher strikes is that the solution to teachers' concerns is always the same: more money toward salaries or to hire more employees. The mantra is always the same, too: Strikes are "for the kids" while, not surprisingly, the solutions always seem to benefit the adults.

Kent teachers say they are striking ["Kent teachers vote to strike as talks go on," page one, Aug. 27] for lower class sizes, and their solution is to hire more classroom teachers.
Here are the facts: The Kent School District Web site says the district serves 26,833 students and employs 3,292 people, of which 1,745 are teachers.

This is 15.4 students per teacher. If class sizes are too big, then a solution lies with the staffing ratio of non-classroom teachers.

It appears the actual average districtwide class size is about 25 students, which would fill about 1,073 classrooms, yet the Kent District employs 1,742 teachers. Simple math says there are 669 teachers who are not "in the classroom," and 1,550 other nonteaching positions.

Replacing non-classroom teachers with in-classroom teachers should not cost more money, and if done well, could actually save money.

I am confident the teachers will support this, since it is for the benefit of the kids.

-- Daniel Hillman, Tacoma

Reduce class sizes by bringing in fresh faces

How would raising the salary of the teachers in the Kent School District reduce class sizes?

I suggest we take away say 5 percent to 10 percent of teachers' salaries to hire new teachers to help downsize the numbers in the classrooms. They should be happy to eliminate the stress of so many children they are responsible for. How, I repeat how, can the classroom numbers be reined in by paying the existing teachers more?

Is the state ultimately responsible? We all (should) know the answer is yes. Even at the cost of loosing some overpriced art projects, we all have to fund in this state. Throwing more money at teachers will not diminish class sizes. Hire teachers, put people to work and replace the "deadwood" who have lost the desire to make a difference.

Please, hire new talent, and people who are interested in making a difference and glad to use their education. Now is the time to rid our educational system of the teachers who have lost their drive, as we cannot afford their expense or the negative impact they have on the children. We all know the ones we had in our time.

The teachers union should be at the front of this movement, if only for its members' jobs. The union is well aware of problematic teachers.

If the union chooses to defend them, it will become one of the untold unions in this country that was all about itself, not in touch with the reason it was even formed.

-- Richard Eirich, Kirkland

Teacher on strike? That will be $100 a day

I think it is about time to fine teachers so they suffer a monetary loss while striking -- something like $100 a day. Bargaining employees in other sectors suffer financially, and it takes real backbone to strike, but if they didn't lose anything there would be strikes all the time.

It takes a strong person to strike. Teachers can do it because they lose nothing and just create hardship on students and parents by late start and ending of the school year.
Financial loss is the only answer to stop them from going on strike so easily.

-- Ed Williams, Renton

Teachers look like fools striking during recession

Its amazing to me in a time when all workers are being asked to do a little more, stay a little late and perform a little better during a recession, the teachers in Kent School District and other districts go on strike.

Teachers have every summer off, every weekend and every holiday. In Kent, they have been asked to meet in the morning and afternoon; I have asked my management team to do so as well this year to ensure every penny is accounted for, and we are all on the same page and performing well.

It's amazing and a sad day for the unions again, when in the face of obvious hard times and struggles for everyone, they choose to stand up and make themselves and their members look foolish.

-- Thomas Olson, Sumner

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

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

Hey, we're hanging in there

To all my friends around the country, regarding your question: "How's the recovery going in Seattle these days?"

Oh, it's going just great! Ph.D.s are looking for work outside the Home Depot, PCC is doing workshops on "Cooking with Grass and Other Backyard Delicacies," the population of cats is diminishing rapidly, and I-5 was closed last week for a citywide block party.

Boeing is using their runway-maintenance vehicles as a fleet of ice-cream trucks. Microsoft is having a blowout blitz on all of their discontinued 2007 software (as-is, as usual), Starbuck's introduced Instant Water, and Whole Foods changed its name to Half Foods.

The Mariners merged with Ivar's last week, and Chase (nee WaMu) is offering grilled sandwiches at ATMs throughout the region.

As an incentive to create jobs, Mayor "Nickels for the Poor" Greg Nickels introduced a 20-hour workweek, which, of course, for Seattleites means that no work is being done anywhere.

The floating bridges have sunk, Seattle is cut off from the rest of the world, and the once-friendly citizens of Redmond and Bellevue have taken up arms against each other. Nordstrom's is supplying uniforms for both sides.

The physical climate has changed as well -- Safeco Field makes the NOLA stadium look like child's play. They are turning out the lights tonight, and iCurfew starts in five minutes, so I have to go.

Ramen awaits!

Fondly,

Jobless in Seattle.

-- Tom Lewis, Seattle

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

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

Can't have one without the other

Recently I read an editorial praising young people who are increasingly choosing public employment as a career path ["More students drawn to public-service careers," Opinion, April 17]. Within days we saw an editorial demanding no further tax increases ["No more taxes," Opinion, April 19].

The letter regarding public service made no mention of volunteerism, only the value of entering the career path of a public servant. Of course, these jobs would need to be paid with taxes, which you also seem to be against.

Perhaps a better approach would be to ask readers to volunteer in their communities, helping alleviate the pressures on public servants, not advocating for increasing government-worker ranks.

Our country needs media companies like The Seattle Times to encourage young people to enter private employment, work hard and volunteer their hard-earned time talent and treasures. Oh, and pay taxes to support a modest number of government employees.

-- Kevin Sutherland, Seattle

A waste of taxpayer money

If there is a single barometer of what's wrong in America, it has to be that the government needs to rent the Tacoma Dome Exhibition Hall to fill one job and that a journalist can see nothing wrong with that ["1,400 apply: 'I was the lucky one,'" NW Tuesday, April 21]. Why should taxpayers have to pay for that?

For just a meter reader!

-- Gerald Petz, Sammamish

City: Spending cuts neglect what's important to citizens

Faced with a tax shortfall caused by widespread financial fraud in the private-sector economy, Mayor Greg Nickels proposes to neglect the earthquake protection of our emergency-services facilities ["City facilities to take tax hit," NW Tuesday, April 14]. And then, of course, parks and libraries are thrown in for cutting, too.

When a politician is readying the electorate for a big tax hike, it would not do for the voters to think the money was needed for upkeep on the mayor's limo or for more publicly financed infrastructure around some tycoon campaign-financier's development project.

I suppose it is just sour grapes to suggest that the wealthy who caused our economic downturn should have to wait for recovery to get their subsidies. Better we crush the firemen in eight of our firehouses when the next earthquake strikes.

Once again, Mayor Nickels shows he knows what is important -- to him.

-- George and Patricia Robertson, Seattle

State: Avoid tuition increase -- tap UW endowment fund

Gov. Chris Gregoire proposes a 30 percent tuition increase over two school years to raise $190 million for the state's four-year universities ["Gregoire: Raise tuition 14%," page one, April 8]. Without supportive data, I estimate the tuition increase at the UW will bring in about $100 million.

The economy is in a deep recession -- a financial crisis, by some measures. So why increase tuition? The UW is a business. Its business is educating students. How many businesses are increasing prices during this recession? I guess not many.

The tuition increase would dump the entire financial burden on the students (and their families) at a most terrible time in the economy. Is there an alternative solution?

Yes -- just tap the endowment fund for the whole $100 million. At its high point, the fund was around $2 billion. Currently, I guess the fund to be around $1.6 billion. The $400 million drop is due to the recession.

Likewise, the additional $100 million drop to offset the proposed tuition increase can be charged off to the recession. The $100 million will fund UW operational expenses. The tuition will remain frozen at its current level.

Harvard has only recently started using its endowment fund for the direct benefit of its students. The UW should do the same. If not now, then when?

I do not know the policy regarding use of the UW endowment fund. However, should the policy be "no direct benefits to students," then change the policy.

-- Bob Conrad, Seattle

Federal: Overspending in an economic depression

I'm studying U.S. history at the high-school level and I'm sorry a periodical like The Times would publish an article like "A Keynes moment" [Business & Technology, April 12].

Saying FDR did not spend much on stimulus is absurd. Roosevelt spent more money and raised taxes more than any president before him. In addition, he started dozens of government programs. All they did was raise taxes and cause inflation.

The only way to say FDR didn't spend much is if you compare his spending to Obama's absurd $9 trillion budget, which will not help the economy any more than Roosevelt's millions did.

Most economists now see that Roosevelt's spending probably made the Great Depression worse. My fear is that Obama will make the same mistake as Roosevelt: overspending.

-- Andrew Kato, Renton

Take a stimulus vacation to Central Oregon

The age of ultra-easy credit put an exclamation point on Bend's meteoric rise and fall. This is a tragic story for the local residents and is yet another example of unbridled greed among bank executives ["Oregon's 'new West' tumbles," page one, April 12].

If traditional credit standards were applied, Bend would still be on a steady upward path to prosperity today and into the future. But it is what it is, so the best thing for Bend's economy is for the rest of us to keep vacationing there and keep having fun while we're at it. Not a bad way to go, really.

All of the things that make Central Oregon a great place to visit are still in place: friendly people, hiking, biking, skiing, golfing, fauna, flora, excellent restaurants and sunny weather. So go there and have some fun!

Bend remains a desirable retirement center with excellent medical services and a favorable housing-price differential compared with urban areas where many retirees originate from. And if you have some extra money and are looking for a quality second home in a wonderful area, now's the time to buy. Bend won't stay down for long.

-- Hal Hockema, Lake Forest Park

Lefteris Pitarakis / The Associated Press

The Air Force's Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor fighter plane is targeted for the budget knife

Editor, The Times:

Fifty years ago, President Eisenhower warned of the growing influence of the military-industrial complex. Since then, it has become the No. 1 sacred cow, with anybody opposed to continued taxpayer-funded expansion branded with the worn epithets now made famous by our last Squanderer-In-Chief.

It's time to put the brakes on the gravy train that makes defense contractors and their wealthy owners rich, but does nothing to help, and palpably harms, America's security ["Pentagon proposes historic overhaul," page one, April 7].

If this tax money were spent anywhere else -- for example, on secondary education -- there would be two to three times as many family-wage jobs created as are presently going into the black holes of the Pentagon and its suburbs. We would have more to show for it than abandoned missile silos and mothballed fleets, and executive yachts and exclusive, gated communities.

I am prepared to hear the members of Congress, D-Boeing and R-Boeing, attacking Defense Secretary Robert Gates for not supporting the troops. That is an insincere and well-worn path that will expose who is really running their campaigns on the donations of defense contractors.

-- David Kerlick, Seattle

Taxing the rich has a groundswell of support

I just read Andrew Garber's article "Obstacles challenge proposals to tax rich" [page one, April 3].

The obstacles are overblown, such as his assertion that advocating taxing millionaires to pay for public services is "risky" for the Democrats. Taxing the rich wouldn't even be on the table unless there was a groundswell of popular support for it. Elected officials should be eager to get that kind of support.

But maybe what Garber means is the risk that the rich might withhold campaign contributions from politicians who want to tax them. Well, good riddance! We would all be better off without the undue influence that their money buys in legislative chambers. We need public funding of elections instead.

In hard times like this, legislators need to worry less about re-election and more about funding education and other vital public services. A steeply graduated, high-threshold tax on income of the 130,000 Washington households earning more than $1 million a year would go a long way toward solving the state's budget crisis and growing humanitarian problems.

The alternative -- imposing more regressive taxes on the cash-strapped working-class majority -- presents a genuine risk to legislators. It will spark a righteous, grass-roots political backlash from those who already face layoffs, social-service cuts, wage freezes and the loss of health-care coverage.

-- Fred Hyde, Seattle

Tax will inevitably increase

No, no, no. Never, never, never to an income tax! There is no way the people of this state should vote in an income tax.

The current proposals floated in the Legislature are only an attempt to get the camel's nose under the tent. Once the Legislature got a small-percentage income tax voted in, very soon afterward the percentage would increase forever and none of the taxes we currently pay would ever be rescinded or reduced. If you want a fair system of taxation, change the current system and don't even think of adding on an income tax. A tax on consumption would be fairer system, if crafted correctly.

No income tax will ever stay low; it will inevitably rise with the whim of the Legislature or governor. No tax on the books now will be removed, only increased.

-- Bill Davis, Kingston

The best option under a cloud of budget cuts

Good to see a few legislators dare to mention that novel concept, tax the rich. This is just what state workers demanded on Presidents Day when they rallied in Olympia.

Most everyone is living under a cloud of threatened budget cuts. Millions of people in Washington state will lose health care, schooling, public transportation, child care, even a roof over their heads.

The Seattle Times editorial board rejects taxing the wealthy to avoid this suffering. Instead, it advocates eliminating the General Assistance Unemployable program for the sick and disabled ["State should shift cuts in education to less-urgent programs," editorial, April 6].

The Times' response to 8,000 state employees losing their jobs is equally coldhearted: Hit those who remain employed with increased medical-insurance premiums and co-pays, on top of the pay freezes and furloughs they already face.

Legislators have got to grab hold of a little courage and stop thinking about all the obstacles to taxing the rich -- those 130,000 millionaire households in the state, and who knows how many billionaire corporations. The next step is simple.

Hey, lawmakers! Make some laws to tax the income of the really rich, the top 5 percent. Cancel the budget cuts that affect the welfare and health of everyone else.

-- Monica Hill, Seattle

A fair way to redistribute tax burden

Letter writer Erik Cullen is concerned that an income tax would cause entrepreneurs to choose cities in Texas, Arizona or Florida over Washington state ["State income tax: will deter entrepreneurs," Northwest Voices, April 5]. Two of these states, Arizona and Florida, tax income. Arizona taxes both personal and corporate income. Florida has a corporate net-income tax.

And Cullen apparently didn't check Washington's treatment of corporate income before choosing Seattle and starting a business. Although Washington doesn't have a net corporate tax, it does have a business and occupation tax. He will pay a tax on gross income even if his business should not be profitable.

It's commendable that Cullen has contributed his time and expertise to Habitat for Humanity. But he might give some consideration to the tax burden of the people who will live in the homes he helps construct, as well as to his own. They are presumably low-income families who, under our tax system, will pay a sales tax on all of the articles they buy to furnish their new home, as well as their kids' clothes and other personal necessities.

Our high sales tax, now almost 10 percent, and the gross business tax are two important reasons to reform our tax structure in order to redistribute the tax burden more fairly.

-- Dick Nelson, Seattle

Cannot balance budget on the backs of the highly vulnerable
An editorial Monday ["State should shift cuts in education to less-urgent programs," Opinion, April 6] argues that General Assistance Unemployable (GAU) funding should be eliminated and shifted to education. United Way of King County is acutely aware of the importance of investing in education -- early learning is one of our top priorities -- but we challenge the assertion that money for education must come from a program that serves many of our communities' most vulnerable adults.

GAU provides medical benefits and monthly grants of $339 to 16,000 people in Washington who have become unable to work due to long-term mental or physical impairments. These small grants are often a sole source of income. Many recipients share rooms, live part-time in shelters, are in public housing or already live on the streets. GAU represents the final thread of an already frayed safety net.

While eliminating GAU represents a cost savings on paper, in reality it transfers costs to more expensive remedial efforts.

If GAU is eliminated, already-tenuous housing arrangements will fall apart, the need for shelter beds will increase, health issues will become more acute and take more emergency care, and more people, now desperate, will find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Cutting GAU -- like neglecting education -- will ultimately cost far more than it saves.

Hard choices face the Legislature, to be certain, but neither balancing the budget on the backs of school-aged children nor on highly vulnerable adults is acceptable.

-- Vince Matulionis, director, Homelessness Initiative, United Way of King County

What should our grandkids pay for?

I've been pondering the ethics of making my grandkids pay off my national debt.

The ethics shake out depending on what we borrowed for:

To build bridges, runways and harbors they will benefit from? You bet.

To get college educations for their parents so they'll have a head start in life? Probably.

To ensure they and their parents will have affordable health care? You bet.

To ensure that their parents and I will have comprehensive last-illness medical care? I don't think so.

To fund a war to guarantee our access to Middle East oil? Definitely not.

Fund development of other energy sources? You bet.

Prevent collapse of the world economy, prevent a greater depression and the worldwide bloodshed likely to follow? Probably.

Make more military hardware? Probably not.

Develop electric cars? Probably. Bail out GM? Probably not. Buy up old cars? Sure.

Improve the national parks, city parks, rails to trails? Absolutely!

Fund arts projects? Just my opinion -- no.

Fund music and dance and writing lessons? Sure.

Fight the war on drugs the way we have been? Nope.

Fight that war by giving confiscated drugs away free to kill the drug economy. Sure.

We could articulate such an ethic.

-- Nathan Kirk, Auburn

A new experience for an experienced nurse

There is great wisdom in the old saying, "Walk a mile in my shoes." Over the coming weeks, as my severance pay dwindles while I search for meaningful work, I will join the ranks of millions traveling virtual miles on the Web, seeking re-employment.

Luckier than most, I have nursing shoes to fill, but I have learned a sobering lesson about ageism. My years of experience and broad knowledge base come at a price for any potential employer. Union rules dictate that a nurse's salary reflect the importance of his or her experience -- this makes the youngest nurses among us the most fiscally desirable for potential employers.

For years working in a home health setting, I have seen the world through the eyes of people living with transient, chronic and terminal illnesses. Many of these people met my gaze with gratitude when they realized how much I valued their strength as they lived though vulnerable times.

As my search for a new role in nursing continues, I hope to see in the gaze of potential employers a similar appreciation for my strengths as I handle my newfound vulnerability.

-- Pam Silverstein, Seattle

A search for balance

No matter which science you study, there is one immutable principle that always applies. No exceptions. No variations. There must always be balance. Predators and prey. Provisions and consumers. Solids, liquids, gases.

If they don't balance, the system collapses. Sometimes it happens rapidly and sometimes it takes a while, but inevitably it collapses.

That's what has happened to our economy. For too long, we have allowed those who want to accumulate greater and greater imbalances in the world's resources for their own enrichment to design our economic systems, until finally they have amassed such a huge stockpile of wealth that there is insufficient to provide purchasing power to the rest of us to buy the widgets they are peddling and -- oh yes -- food, shelter and medicine.

It's time the purge our culture of the religion of uncontrolled greed as the earthly vessel of liberty and justice for all. It's the law of the jungle codified into oligarchy, and it's killing us. Literally.

People are dying every day to facilitate wealth and it's time we reined it in if we dare to claim to be civilized.

-- Harold R. Pettus, Everett

Brighten your outlook

In response to David Brooks' column Saturday, about "global ruin" ["U.S. looks for dust bunnies while world's economy tanks," Opinion, March 21], all I can say is, we need a new outlook.

Concerning the economic mess that we are in, if dust bunnies are where we start, then lets keep our heads up for having a start. A messy room does not get cleaned by shaking your fist and pointing. You have to start in one small corner. Tackling one thing creates accomplishment and motivation, so it goes for world economics.

Despite Brooks' overwhelming information about job-loss projections, how central European countries are teetering, not to mention, how our pessimists have been recently vindicated by events -- or is it that they collectively manifested them? -- floundering in negativity and despair makes me want to jump off a cliff.

Have a little hope, David. Your opinions are not helping anything.

-- Anna Welsch, Indianola

Politics and greed

What the discourses between the White House and Congress has recently taught me.
Principles for a good politician in a narcistic society:

-- Cater only to your political reality, or the impressions of the world and you of your voting constituency.

-- Take every opportunity to patronize your voting constituency.

-- It is better to fail at a political reality initiative, than to succeed with a real one.

-- Always speak implicitly to ensure maximum plausible deniability.

-- And if you are caught in a lie . . . deny, deny, deny.

-- Dale J. Sprague, Seattle

We all have to sacrifice

While the AIG executives are having a pity party over the outrage surrounding their bonuses, one daughter is having to short-sale her house due to impossible mortgage payments and a 75-percent drop in value.

My other daughter has lost grant money to research the sources of chemical damage to our waterways that impacts the sea life and will likely lose her job due to lack of funding.

Our department will not get raises (despite outstanding work this last year) so we can keep our costs down for our patient population and maintain safe staffing levels.

I am sure that one of the AIG bonuses could solve a lot of problems for the rest of us. If they won't stay without the bonuses, then let them go. Life is not always fair and it is certainly not just in these economic times.

-- Kathy Kimball, Seattle

Politics or solving a real problem

Is it just me or is our two-party system of government on the verge of hindering the process of protecting our country's purpose.

What I have been witnessing is a constant search by each party to discredit its rival's process to govern the citizens of the United States. There never seems to be a common purpose.

I feel each political party has hired groups of people seeking its rival's verbal missteps and actions that would infuriate the gullible citizen, intolerant media and special-interest groups into casting shadows on its rival's actions.

I'm sorry, but I have bigger things to worry about than what the president may have said or who he has inadvertently mocked. If this is all there is to a two-party system of government we are going to fail as a country. I'm not impressed!

-- Jim Morris, Renton

Congestion down -- but will we learn?

Ken Lambert/The Seattle Times

Looking east, the Mercer Mess at rush hour.

Editor, The Times:

Congestion in the Seattle area has been getting worse for decades, but it took a historic national recession to finally provide commuters with relief ["Job cuts result in quicker commute," page one, March 17].

So should we maintain an 8.4-percent unemployment rate to keep traffic down? Obviously not. But the traffic trends over the past year point us to better solutions, if we learn from them.

Washingtonians have cut down on their driving, as have commuters across the country. The Federal Highway Administration showed a 3-percent decrease in vehicle miles traveled in 2008, which translated into a 30-percent reduction in peak-hour congestion. With that evidence, demand management seems like a much more cost-effective solution to congestion than expanding freeways.

There are multiple ways to influence the demand for our freeways: better public transit, affordable housing in the urban core, or variable tolling, to name a few. All are options that are cheaper than highway expansion and significantly better for the environment.

Ultimately, the economy will recover and congestion probably will get worse again. In these tumultuous times we are already taking a hard look at health care, energy and educational policies to chart a better course, but we can't ignore our transportation sector. We have to take a good long look at our transportation system, from the vision to the implementation. We have to learn from the lessons of today to secure a better and more sustainable tomorrow.

-- David Kosmos, Washington Public Interest Research Group, Seattle

Give Obama the tools to succeed

During the Bush years, wealth became concentrated in the hands of the few -- even more than normal. Americans in general felt wealthier. It was an illusion created by borrowing and inflated asset value.

Now in this era of economic contraction and deflation, it will once again be the minority at the top who will benefit and increase in wealth. Assets will be cheaper than they have been in 50 years. Those with money will have opportunity to expand their holdings. The majority without sufficient cash, without borrowing capability, without sizable income or adequate employment, will be lost.

At least we have the right president at this time. Let's hope Congress has the political will to give him the tools to succeed.

Older people tend to need to spend less. The baby boomers as least had disposable income. That's largely gone. Also gone are opportunities for their children, who have the financial obligations that come with establishing a family and acquiring assets to live the American consumer dream. They will need the help of their boomer parents to survive.

This survival mode will further contract the economy. Only massive government spending at unimaginable levels for a sustained period can bridge this unstable time.

Hold on. Hold on.

-- John Atkinson, Bainbridge Island

Let the free-enterprise system cure what ails us

Here is the deal. The politicos gave a knee-jerk response before anyone bothered to define or understand what was happening. Actually, what is going on is a good thing. We live and function as a society due to the workings of the "free-enterprise system." a system that includes "supply and demand" and "capitalism."

Like all systems, it is subject to breakdown, or in this case, cancer. The free-enterprise system got cancer. It got cancer because elements entered the system that did not work out. The way banking has evolved over the past 10 years, with subprime mortgages and all the other little twists, did not work out. Once you do something in the free-enterprise system that does not work, how then do you get rid of the cancer in the system?

There is no magic. The fix is painful. In order to rid itself of the cancerous bodies, the system/marketplace threw them into financial crisis aimed at bankruptcy -- a normal process. Were the system permitted to continue and get rid of the cancerous elements, new, modern, heathy cells would replace the bad ones.

But instead, we are spending billions attempting to keep the bad ones.

-- Ted Nelson, Seattle

South Carolina's governor knows best

President Obama is overreaching with his demands that the governor of South Carolina must accept $700 million of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds ["White House rebuffs S.C. governor," News, March 17].

The governor contends the administration attaches "strings" to the funding that would tip the state's economy and social fiber. Further, the governor feels that such high levels of spending at a time when the money is not available and wouldn't be spent in "good" economic times is unsound.

Additionally, the funds enact projects and programs that will require additional indebtedness -- perhaps for generations.

The president and his party respond with television ads that criticize the governor personally. So much for transparency, fiscal responsible and moving away from "the old politics."

In the end, isn't it a governor who has the state's interests at heart? Shouldn't the governor know, firsthand, what is best for his state and its economy. Don't we err toward big-brother government when we override states' rights with a social agenda?

-- Mark I. Bowers, Issaquah

AIG: the cool side

There's something cool about the AIG bonus scandal: There's something in it to satisfy both the anti-government rightists and the anti-corporate leftists.

The real lesson is that both corporations and government need to be held accountable.

-- Donald A. Smith, Bellevue

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

Preventing vacant homes and homelessness

Why some members of Congress are still bowing down to the banks and lenders that caused this economic mess is beyond me.

One simple change in bankruptcy laws to allow a judge to modify a primary-home loan, as a judge can now do on vacation homes and apartments makes sense.

It would allow people to live in their primary residence and continue to pay on a modified loan, preventing a home from being vacant, awaiting foreclosure. It would also prevent these people from becoming homeless and requiring some government agency to find housing for them and their families.

-- Harriet Benjamin, Seattle

Capital going on strike

President Obama's Feb. 24 speech reveals he plans to harm the economy in numerous ways: tax increases backed by envious soak-the-productive rhetoric, increased regulations, direct and indirect politicization of lending practices by banks (the main cause of our current economic troubles), hundreds of billions of dollars more in corporate welfare and pork, boondoggles into uneconomic-energy methods and, perhaps worst of all, socialist health care.

I am selling a significant portion of my remaining stock-market holdings today, as it's clearer than ever Obama and the Democrats will continue to knife the economy in the back. My capital is "going on strike."

With the stock market down by about 23 percent since our empty suit of a president was elected, it's clear that my capital isn't alone.

As author Ayn Rand commented about times such as this in which government tyranny increases, "Be as un-reassured as you have the wits to be."

-- Mark Kalinowski, New York, N.Y.

Meeting the true enemy

Let me see if I've got this right. The national economy is experiencing the most severe crisis since the Great Depression, and there is a chance, hopefully small but greater than zero, that the present "Great Recession" could degenerate into "Great Depression Part 2."

Locally, Boeing is laying off; Microsoft is laying off. Washington Mutual has just imploded past its own event horizon. Families' homes are being foreclosed at record rates. People are increasingly having to make the choice between food, rent and health care. All this and the "Great Recession" is only officially a little over a year old.

But, hey, Ken Griffey Jr. is back in Seattle; KOMO-TV reports Griffey jerseys are selling in the Mariner team shop for -- I swear the following number is not a typo -- $230 a pop. Furthermore, the team shop is having trouble keeping them on the shelf because the demand is so intense.

Of course, I, along with everyone else, welcome Griffey back home. But, this is not about him; it is about the choices we make. In particular, it is about the bad choices we make and the bad choices we continue to make, despite desperate circumstances.

Over the past decade, we have, collectively, made bad choices financially. It seems we are still making bad choices. Maybe, just maybe, in the last analysis, Pogo was right: "We have met the enemy and they are us."

Maybe we get precisely the economy we deserve.

-- James Cowles, Kent

Suppressed, skewed and spun for 8 years

The stock market is dropping like a rock. Banks are collapsing. People are being laid of left and right. The economy is either tanking or it has already tanked. We may not be in a recession, but instead a deep depression.

What's happening?

We're starting to hear the truth, the truth that has been suppressed, skewed and turned upside down for the past eight years. That's what's happening.

The truth hurts. Once we start to understand the pure fantasy world that was spun during the last eight years, we'll figure out how to deal with reality. We'll stop the denial, put confusion behind us and face the facts.

Strong, honest, calm, intelligent leadership will help. At least we have that piece in place.

-- Bruce Barnbaum, Granite Falls

Doom and gloom inundation

The day-trading, quick-fix mentality was a contributing factor to the current economic downturn. Why then is the lion's share of the media coverage using the same minute-by-minute approach to cover the efforts to turn this ship around?

The constant doom and gloom inundation of the severity of the crisis is contributing to a fiscal psychology that ends up prolonging this very crisis.

For example, having "a review of the president's first 21 days" presents an impatient and myopic perspective. Instead, there should be some journalistic responsibility to giving the public a greater perspective on the issues. How long have previous recessions lasted? What were the first signs of recovery? How is the recession the same or different?

I am a firm believer that slow change represents lasting change, but we need the day-trading news cycle to include this perspective. Currently, there is more than $4 trillion resting in money-market accounts across our nation. This is a record high.

My concern is until our media stops peddling fear (as it was trained to do during the former President Bush years), people's courage to reinvest will stay frozen along with our economy.

-- Erik Wood, Queen Anne

Strikes don't warrant termination

I understand our economy here in the U.S. is having some serious problems, but regarding an article I read published in The Seattle Times about Boeing layoffs ["More Boeing pink slips," Bizline, Business, Feb. 20], I believe there is enough blame for everyone.

The truth is Boeing sales have decreased mostly because the union went on strike for 57 days, so Boeing workers also went on strike for 57 days.

Boeing was then delayed in the production of some airplanes. And because of the delay, some orders were canceled.

The cost of not selling one airplane is around $220 million. This is not reason enough to fire employees.

Juan Pablo Munilla C., Port Townsend

Sustaining our neighborhoods, sustaining culture

Keeping local businesses alive ["Small way to help small business," page one, Feb. 17] is something many of us would like to do, but find ourselves unable to.

With large national chains constantly offering deeper discounts to increase customers, it's tough not to shop at such stores. What keeps me going back to local, small businesses is the thought that if I don't support them, someday I may not have the option.

Large corporations have overtaken our retail market. If consumers don't take an interest in local businesses, they will be faced with the evaporation of neighborhoods like Fremont and Ballard. These places are valuable cultural sites in our communities that need to be sustained, as well as encouraged, in order to thrive.

Small business used to be the backbone of American society; diversity was their strength. They are what may help save our economy.

So, while it's tempting to buy the $3 book at a chain store, spend the extra couple of bucks at a local store. Consider it an investment in the communities we all love and need in our lives.

-- Hayley Smith, Brier

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

A potentially dangerous precedent

President Obama's decree to cap certain CEOs' compensation will no doubt be another popular, "feel good" move for many. However, maybe we should ask ourselves if it doesn't set a potentially dangerous precedent.

The government doesn't have a sparkling track record for efficiently managing its own affairs. Yet it's now posed to make some very deep incursions into the operation and control of the free-market system. By any other name, this would be called "socialism." History shows us that a socialist system has never been successful in advancing any nation's economic structure.

If Obama is so outraged over the admittedly excessive, and often undeserved, compensation of certain CEOs, I wonder if he would show equal zeal in reining in all the former members of Congress, high-level bureaucrats, elected officials, military leaders, etc. who parlayed their previous positions of power and influence into seven-plus figure incomes after leaving their federal payrolls.

One can reasonably question the ethics of those who now lobby to change the laws and regulations they were once instrumental in enacting and enforcing solely for the benefit and advantage of their new employers. It would seem even more unconscionable when they are doing it to promote and benefit foreign interests and governments.

I have yet to hear anyone in the "other" Washington raising a protest about that kind of activity, and I doubt I ever will.

My grandfather often said "The Golden Rule" meant those with the gold get to make the rules. No one has more "gold" to at their disposal than the government.

-- Lee Fowble, Edmonds

Finally, making it clear

Thus far, President Obama has been impressive. Unlike so many politicians in my lifetime, he seems willing and able to level with us, rather than take the easy way out.

I have long wondered why so many people felt it was acceptable for the top earners to receive obscene salaries and bonuses, often based on the price of the company's stock, which is so often a poor barometer of the real, long-term health of the company.

I wish it had not taken so many years of greed, and such an economic meltdown, for a president to make so clear that this behavior is unacceptable.

President Obama has called for a salary limit of $500,000 per year for executives working for the companies that will share in the bailout and stock options, which can only be redeemed after the government has received its money. This is in stark contrast to former President Bush, who, a few months ago, said limits on executive compensation were unacceptable.

So much for having a MBA president who would run the government like a business. Unfortunately, it was run like Enron, WorldCom and Bernie Madoff's investment firm.

I prefer what we are now getting from President Obama. Just imagine what he and his administration could do if it did not have to spend so much time and energy on keeping us from falling into the abyss created by the past 28 years.

-- Russ Kevin Childers, Seattle

Learn from the silent, selfless ferry workers

In all the furor of what is going on with the economy, I thought someone would jump up and yell, "Congratulations," to the ferry workers who decided to forgo a raise this year in the interest of everyone keeping their jobs. While I didn't hear much of a peep from anyone, it certainly begs the question: Are the Boeing machinists paying attention?

Boeing just got a tongue lashing from Richard Branson of Virgin-everything Airlines saying if Boeing and the machinists can't put their disagreements behind them, he's going to Airbus.

All you heard was Boeing saying it was the machinists fault and the machinists saying it was Boeing's fault.

We're in real financial trouble here and not one more person should lose their job. It's time to realize that you don't always get what you wish for. The machinists make more than most and sometimes hard economic times dictate waiting. At least at this point, they have jobs.

If Boeing takes more hits, they probably won't. Take a lesson from the ferry workers who were actually looking out for their fellow workers and not feathering their own nests.

-- Jill Eshenbaugh, University Place

Staying in positive territory

I must have been looking at a graph different from the one Kevin G. Hall cites in his story ["U.S. recession is worsening," Times, Business, Jan. 31].

I'm as worried as the next guy about feeding my family, but not enough to hear Hall and others say we are "in the worst recession since the Great Depression."

It's not so. At least not yet.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis graph of quarterly gross domestic product (GDP) accompanying Hall's story, our economic output has been in positive territory since the first quarter of 2002. It fell just below zero for the first time in the third quarter of 2008 and was followed by a -3.8 percent decline in the fourth quarter of 2008.

According to most economists, a recession is defined as negative growth in our GDP for two consecutive quarters. Thus, in the worst case scenario, we have been in a mild recession since October of 2008, not since "late 2007" as Hall asserts.

In fact, in the last two quarters of 2007 our GDP grew each quarter at a rate of 5 percent. The last time we had two consecutive quarters of 5 percent GDP growth was in 1984.

Again from the same graph, one observes that the U.S. economy has enjoyed greater stability since the mid-80s than in the three decades before the mid-1980s.

To be certain, there are problems with the way our economy is regulated. Banks and financial-service institutions have been allowed to play outside the rules for too long. Regulatory bodies have not been doing their jobs, neither have legislators.

To fix the problems in our economic model we must rely on accurate data. A public disservice is done by sensationalizing our condition as Hall does.

-- Peter Philips, Seattle