Vote against Ref. 1 a vote against liberal agenda

Editor, The Times:

It's the same strategy. Just like the right-wing attack on President Obama isn't really about health care, the vote against a tax on plastic bags was really a vote against the liberal agenda, specifically environmentalism in Seattle.

It's what the Republicans will call a backlash against that liberal agenda.

But really it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's just more dangerous Republican misinformation on how to reduce our waste and pass on the goal of a better place to our kids. The only goal Seattle Republicans have is winning the next election, at any cost.

Republicans seem to believe global warming and other environmental dangers don't exist anyway. There's no real reason to be environmentally conscious in the minds of the Republicans.

-- Doug Morrison, Seattle

Bag tax failed because it wasn't evenly applied

I take offense at Brady Montz's assertion ["City voters don't buy shopping bag charge," News, Aug. 19] that Referendum 1 failed because big business spent more than the Green Bag Campaign 5-to-1.

My friends and I voted against the 20-cent bag tax because it was arbitrary and discriminatory. Some businesses, but not all, had to pay the 20-cent bag tax. Grocery stores, food banks and convenience stores had to pay. Large mega-stores like Target, Sears, Fred Meyer and Macy's were exempt.

The tax would save us from all those non-biodegradable plastic bags but would also tax all those biodegradable paper bags. If the green-bag supporters want a law that will pass then they should outlaw all plastic bags, leaving only paper and reusable bags as alternatives.

Do not write a law, like the one that failed, penalizing only certain businesses and service organizations assisting the poor.

-- Suzanne M. Banchero, Seattle

Despite failed tax, quit plastic bags cold turkey

Many voters felt the plastic bag fee was too nanny-ish. Understandable, but still, the environmental problem remains.

Here's an idea. Judging from the massive sums they spent to defeat this measure, the plastic producers clearly expected plastic-bag sales to take a huge dive if the fee was approved.

Let's all see if we can make that happen anyway by resolutely swearing off plastic bags at the grocery. Cold turkey.

Let's develop a culture in which those who regularly use plastic grocery bags are assumed to be either self-absorbed people like those who talk too loudly on their cellphones or people for whom reusable bags are genuinely beyond their means.

We can roll our eyes at the former and empathize with the latter. But for ourselves, let's do what's right, even without the official prompt. The inconvenience will be minimal.

After all, if you've got a life, plastic bags can't be a very big part of it.

-- William R. Andersen, 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

Before a bag fee, provide incentives to recycle instead

Editor, The Times:

I find it interesting that Seattle wants to impose plastic-bag fees, yet there has been absolutely no push for deposits for plastic or glass bottles or for soda and beer cans.

Over the past three years, I have recycled more than 82,000 aluminum cans, of which more than 75,000 I have personally removed from the roadsides here in South King County, primarily in the Renton and Maple Valley areas.

What really bothers me is the fact I have left behind approximately 6,000 glass bottles and well more than 12,000 to 13,000 plastic bottles during this time frame.

Keep in mind that deposits are required for all of these items in Idaho, Oregon, California and other states and as a direct result you have far less litter.

Cash refunds would guarantee much cleaner roadside areas, and at the same time, provide those in need with additional and needed income.

Why are we spending our tax dollars cleaning up our roads? At 5 cents a can and bottle, if I had recycled everything I've mentioned, I would have made around $5,000.

-- Ron Freese, Renton

If bags are so bad, why don't we ban them?

I don't live in Seattle, so I don't get to vote on the proposed bag fee/tax. I do work at a retail store in Seattle, however.

I am quite confused at the idea of charging a fee as a disincentive to use bags. If the bags are so bad, ban them. If they don't warrant a ban, put the community's resources to use elsewhere.

It may technically be a "fee," but it sure feels like a terribly regressive "tax."
On the other hand, I'd gladly fork over a dollar or more per bag if it meant the streets would be properly cleared of snow and ice in the winter.

-- Shaun Anthony, Renton

Complicating grocery transactions an effective plan

Peter Nickerson and Randy Rucker's assessment ["Bag tax would be a lot of hassle with little environmental impact," Opinion, guest column, Aug. 5] of the proposed bag tax misses a few points.

Yes, it's great most Seattleites don't litter, but that does not lead to the conclusion that there is no bag scourge. Any plastic that becomes waste is a scourge. Those who are trying to connect the dots between consumer behavior and increased waste plastic know this.

I agree that "the tax will solve no environmental problem" and will "complicate a million grocery transactions in the city daily." That's the point.

Waste-management problems may be best addressed by means of consumer inconvenience. If consumers can embrace recycling their newspapers, glass bottles and aluminum cans, providing for our own grocery-bagging needs should be an easy next step.

Look around you. See any scarcity of backpacks, canvas bags and other reusable bags? I still agree with their conclusion that if we want to improve the environment via taxation there are better choices.

Another way to get people's attention is to stop offering them bagging service. Make an announcement. Pick a day. Let them squirm a few days, and they'll pick up a bagging habit faster than a cockroach escaping a glaring light bulb.

-- Marcella Van Oel, Seattle

Making change by shifting attitudes

I'm a big fan of the plastic-bag tax. Why? Because it will eliminate a reflexive waste of resources. Currently, the automatic assumption at most stores is that you want your items bagged.

Buy a single pencil? It goes in a bag. Yes, you can decline the bag, and I do.

But I've got to be fast! One second of distraction and I've got another annoying plastic bag. I want to flip the assumption around, and I believe the bag tax will do that.

I'd love the conversation to flip from me saying, "Ack! No bags!" to the cashier saying, "Do you wish to purchase bags today?"

Shifts in attitude do matter. Let's move to a society in which the least wasteful option is the norm, rather than the exception. The bag tax may not be the biggest step or the most meaningful step, but it is the next step.

We have to walk before we can run. Though I suppose we could bike or bus. Whatever transit mode you choose, remember your reusable bags!

Vote yes on Seattle Referendum 1.

-- Karen Crisalli Winter, Seattle

Don't stop with tax, ban plastic bags entirely

Peter Nickerson and Randy Rucker ["Bag tax would be a lot of hassle with little environmental impact," Opinion, guest column, August 5] just don't get it.

Every piece of plastic we make will be on this planet for the rest of time. Plastic does not biodegrade quickly. It can only be transformed into something that is not plastic by burning it, which opens a whole host of environmental consequences.

Yes, most Seattleites collect their plastic bags for recycling. However, plastic bags cannot truly be recycled. Most of Seattle's plastic bags end up shipped to China where they are burned. This is not recycling.

As for their claim that marine mammals are not being harmed by plastic bags, Nickerson and Rucker need to spend some time reading about the Pacific Gyre ["Giant vortex of floating trash swirling in Pacific," CloseUp, August 4], where billions of pieces of plastic refuse are collecting into a mass estimated to be twice the size of Texas.

We have no idea what the repercussions of this garbage patch are going to be. It may not be killing the mammals yet, but it is already killing birds and turtles.

I wish we weren't voting on a bag fee either. I wish plastic bags had just been banned.

-- Kimberly Christensen, Seattle

On my bike ride, 11 bags are proof of plastic problem

Peter Nickerson and Randy Rucker must live in a parallel universe inhabited only by economists. Which Seattle do they stroll the streets and parks of in order to declare there isn't a plastic-bag litter problem? Not the same Seattle in which I just completed a bike ride on the trail down to Golden Gardens Park -- I counted 11 plastic bags along the way.

Maybe 11 isn't sufficient to constitute the litter problem Rucker and Nickerson dismiss. One can argue the bag tax both ways, but please don't tell me there isn't any plastic-bag litter.

I invite them to come out to Ballard from Montana and help pick up the trash -- since it doesn't exist, it should be easy.

-- Eric Lucas, Ballard

Basic economics backs up bag fee

In regard to the article, "Would city's bag charge be fee or tax? Depends on which way you lean" [page one, August 4], an important point seems to be missing from the debate about whether to charge consumers for plastic bags: They are already charged!

However, the price is hidden, rolled into the cost of everything consumers buy at the store. Basic economic principles indicate that such hidden costs should be put out into the open so consumers are confronted with the costs in each transaction and can better adjust their purchasing behavior.

Additionally, basic economic principles indicate the price of a plastic bag should reflect any costs not covered in the purchase price of the bag -- such as the cost to remove plastic bags from city streets.

Whether called a fee or a tax, I support Referendum 1 because it incorporates these principles.

-- Mark Daniel, Seattle

Rove would be pleased at some liberals' opposition to bag tax

How I wish I could have a beer with Karl Rove and talk to him about the great Seattle bag-fee debate. He must be happier than he's been in nine months.

He has a whole new group of allies now -- Jan Drago, Danny Westneat, the people at Central Area Motivation Program and all the other mush-minded liberals who are lining up to support the plastics industry.

It's brilliant, really. Rove understands that, unlike the neocons, liberals have never been able to think beyond next week. You can pillage and poison the entire world as long as you don't cause any minor inconvenience to one of their pet constituencies, like the poor.
Combine this with a few dittohead talking points, and you have a bright future for the corporate rape of the world.

Rove must be kicking himself for not having thought of this strategy himself.

-- James Freudiger, Seattle

Ban telephone books, not grocery bags

Seattle should ban telephone books instead of grocery bags. When was the last time anyone used a phone book? And yet they pile up everywhere.

-- Kris Sundberg, Mercer Island

Looming disaster in the grocery checkout line

Editor, The Times:

Rather than a fee or a tax, I think the proposed bag charge will be a logistic nightmare.
I keep reusable totes in the trunk of my car and take them with me into the store most of the time, so I'm not too worried about the implications of this program on my personal grocery bill. I do, however, remember the times when I forgot to request paper and watched as a young bagger placed an array of plastic bags containing one to four items each into my cart.

How will this fee/tax be charged? Will the checker have to wait until all the bags are packed, count them, add the result to the bill and then let the customer pay? How will the lines in the store be affected? Will the people waiting in the lines with their canvas bags stand patiently? How will the poor checkers -- those people on the front lines -- be treated because of all this?

I think it's a bad idea that will become an even worse practice.

-- Laurie Boatsman, Lake Forest Park

At co-op store, a lesson in shopping bags

Madison Market, one of the oldest cooperative grocery stores in Seattle, charges all customers 10 cents if they wish to have a large plastic bag at the checkout counter. And these plastic-bag sales are very slow, since most customers already have the good sense to bring their own cloth bags.

Madison Market quietly leads the way as an isle of tranquillity in Seattle's latest tempest in a teapot where the burning issue seems to be: Is it a fee or a tax?

I will vote to reject the new fee/tax because the business model at Madison Market proves that informed shoppers can handle the plastic-bag controversy quite well -- without governmental intervention.

-- Virgil Howard, Seattle

Misleading claims from American Chemistry Council

I question the American Chemistry Council's motives in providing $1.4 million in funding toward stopping the Seattle bag tax.

This lobbying organization provides partial information on issues impacting member companies' earnings. It has funded limited studies on the use of BPA, an estrogen mimic, in plastic bottles and containers. In the past year, independent scientific panels have examined all studies on BPA's human health risks and noted the inadequate design of the ACC-funded studies, making them outliers that downplay BPA's risk.

Other incomplete ACC studies claim little harm to the environment and energy use from plastic-bag manufacture, use and recycling. The focus should be on a complete life-cycle analysis, including source reduction, something the ACC never mentions.

Source reduction -- making fewer bags to begin with -- would mean less use of raw materials and energy in manufacture, less energy used in collecting and transporting bags for recycling and no energy or factories needed for remanufacturing.

The ACC campaign and sometimes The Seattle Times' columns have focused on the fee's impact on the poor. Seattleites are creative folks -- they can find ways to help people keep track of their reusable totes.

Seattle's tax is simply an opportunity to show leadership in benefiting the environment.

-- Lee Magid, Gig Harbor

The poor should have no problem handling the bag tax

Republicans say Democrats fail to encourage personal responsibility. A recent column ["Who's left holding the bag fee," NWWednesday, July 29] by Danny Westneat provides a perfect example.

CAMP, the Central Area Motivation Program, joined the chemical industry in opposing a plastic-bag fee because it says the tax would adversely impact poor people. It's just too much to ask that poor people remember a bag when they shop, and so they will get charged for them. That's the reasoning -- from a "motivation" program.

It took me months to get used to bringing bags when I shop, but given a little time, even harried old dogs can master new tricks. My tricks all aim to get around forgetfulness and inconvenience.

First, I have a plastic grocery bag or two comes folded into little triangles in the bottom of my purse.

Second, I use a bag donated by a nonprofit that tucks inside itself and clips onto my bicycle.

Third, I leave canvas bags prominently near my front door where I get annoyed enough at tripping over them that I put them in the trunk.

And finally, I locate bag-recycling bins at my grocery stores.

It's time to stop the utter condescension that says harried poor people can't learn new tricks, too.

-- Valerie Tarico, Seattle

Seattle lagging behind foreign cities on bag-use reduction

According to the National Resources Defense Council, Seattle is the most sustainable city in the nation, a title we are proud of. We have many accomplishments on the green front, but in one striking area, we are far behind the rest of the world: disposable-bag use.

The average American uses 600 disposable bags every year, meaning we as a city use 360 million bags annually. As we continue this wasteful habit, the density of plastic in the North Pacific Garbage Patch has doubled from 1998 to 2008, and 100,000 marine mammals continue to die every year because of plastic.

Elsewhere in the world, after discovering severe flooding was due to storm drains blocked with plastic bags, Bangladesh banned them in the capital in 2002. That same year, Ireland placed a fee on plastic bags, causing bag use to drop by 90 percent in the first month.

Seattle has an opportunity to join the rest of the world and prove our title as the most sustainable U.S. city by passing Referendum 1, the 20-cent fee on disposable bags. We cannot call ourselves environmentalists and use 360 million disposable bags every year.

-- Ursula Sandstrom, Seattle

A tax for health care that people won't mind

President Obama indicated that he had two thirds of the cost of the reform paid for out of savings in his proposed plan. The other one third can be raised without hurting anyone.

Place a 50 cent tax on every stock, commodity and derivative transaction. Currently, the major brokers charge a $5.25 processing fee on every transaction on top of their commission.

Adding 50 cents to $5.25 would hardly stir up any objections. It's a win-win situation. The health-care reform will be paid for and the investors will feel good they were able to help millions of people to have access to proper health care with a 50-cent contribution.

-- Murray Levin, Mountlake Terrace

Employer-funded insurance should be eliminated

During the wage- and price-control era of World War II, employers began to offer medical coverage to employees as an allowable alternative to raising wages.

Inserting employer-funded medical care between the doctor and patient had no purpose other than to retain good employees. However, once started, it has been retained as the norm for larger employers, despite the problems it has caused in financing our health care. It served no medical purpose then, and it serves no medical purpose now. It should be eliminated.

It is a problem because large employers such as Boeing, because of risk spreading, can negotiate a much more favorable medical-insurance contract than can a small employer or an individual in business for himself or herself.

It prevents a level playing field being offered to individuals seeking medical insurance. We do not look to employers to provide group fire insurance for our homes. Individually, we shop around for a company offering good coverage at competitive prices in a fire-insurance market that has a level playing field.

Congress can facilitate elimination of employer-provided medical coverage by encouraging tax-free funds currently being paid for employee medical coverage to be distributed to employees as a tax-free increase in wages. Individuals would become responsible to purchase their own coverage. Medical-insurance premiums should remain tax-free.

Current union contracts requiring employer medical coverage could be allowed to expire over a reasonable period of time before funds for such coverage would lose their tax-free status for employers.

-- Ed Wittmann, Seattle

Let's have the same plan for all Americans

Isn't it ironic that the very health-care system Sen. Ted Kennedy demands for us ["With Kennedy ailing, it's still touch-and-go for health-care bill," News, July 27] would have resulted in his own death?

Yes, under the proposed health-care plan, Kennedy would have been sent home with pain pills to die.

Except, I forgot the national health-care plan in the works would not apply to Kennedy. In fact, it would not apply to any congressman or congresswoman, federal employee or union employee as a kickback for campaign contributions. It only applies to the rest of us peons.

Maybe a truly fair plan would be one all Americans would be covered under. Maybe if the politicians had to suffer with the rest of us, they would make better decisions for all of us.

-- Pauline Cornelius, Olalla

Don't insult the poor's intelligence in bag-tax debate

Editor, The Times:

Central Area Motivation Program, or CAMP, opposes the 20-cent bag tax because, it says, the poor just aren't able to remember to bring bags when they shop. The rationale? ["Who's left holding the bag fee," Danny Westneat's column, July 29.] The program handed out reusable bags, told clients to bring them the next time they came and most clients returned without them. The excuses? They forgot the bags. Or someone stole their bag. Or the bag got "lost" in a move.

CAMP does tell its clients what hours it is open. CAMP doesn't stay open all the time in case clients "forget"; if the client shows up during the closed hours, they don't get served.

CAMP tells clients to bring their own bags, and when they forget -- it gives them free food -- and free plastic bags. What's wrong with this picture? CAMP could have charged them 20 cents for a bag, told them to find some sort of a bag and return or let them figure out how to carry the food without a bag. I can guarantee clients would learn really quickly to bring their own bags.

Do these clients forget their wallets? Their shoes? Their cigarettes? No, no and no because the first time they did, they had to do without. Nobody jumped up to hand them free replacements. People learn to be responsible when there are consequences for being irresponsible.

CAMP insults the intelligence of its clients to claim that because they are poor, they aren't able to -- and shouldn't have to -- learn basic lessons in responsibility.

-- Laura Billington, Maple Valley

Don't trust coalition against the bag tax

My July 30 mail brought an expensive brochure from the so-called Coalition to Stop the Seattle Bag Tax, which, according to SourceWatch.org, is a front for the Washington Food Industry, 7-Eleven and some lobbyists for the plastic industry.

The brochure rehearsed the same insulting arguments: The tax will hurt the poor (who presumably are too stupid to buy a $1 cloth bag that will pay for itself in a week), is filled with loopholes (you prefer a stricter tax? Bring it on!) and will result in bureaucracy and cost. That's very public-spirited of the plastics industry. Care to spend some of your money cleaning up the Pacific Trash Vortex, the continent-sized plastic dump that floats in the North Pacific? Didn't think so.

Please don't be fooled by this condescending, mean-spirited, shortsighted and ultimately evil campaign. The tax is a very sensible way to gradually change the behavior of Seattle shoppers and stem the tide of garbage that we're heaping on the Earth.

-- Charles Martin, Seattle

Bag-tax opponents walking on paper-thin arguments

The thinness of the plastic industry's argument against the grocery bag tax is now transparent. The Coalition to Stop the Seattle Bag Tax, supported by the American Chemistry Council, ran a full-page ad in The Seattle Times July 30 making four points to frighten voters.

Its observations of the 20-cent tax on bags are factual but designed to provoke an emotional reaction against taxes. The coalition implies the tax is unfair because it excludes big-box stores. But big-box stores already reduce packaging considerably more than retail stores.

The coalition's emphasis on money that will go to hiring full-time city employees plays on antigovernment feelings, and it purposely obscures that these jobs would be to reduce garbage and promote recycling.

Finally, the coalition makes the absurd claim that because smaller stores keep the taxes, this won't help the environment. I suppose they haven't heard about the Eastern Garbage Patch in the North Pacific Gyre greater than the size of Texas. Or the animals that choke to death on plastic bags. Or the smothering impacts of plastic bags on coral reefs. Or carbon emissions from plastic and paper production. The list goes on and on.

-- Preston Hardison, Seattle

Solutions can be found to help poor endure bag tax

In response to Danny Westneat's column, the issue of poverty in the plastic-bag debate needs to include the desperately poor around the world who are adversely affected by the choices of North Americans.

Bags, pieces of bags and microscopic particles of bags are ingested by shellfish, fish, birds, turtles and other animals that are essential to ocean health. The poor around the world who depend on catching their food in these oceans cannot afford to have the ocean's health compromised. They are already disproportionately affected by the damage we have done to our environment.

I truly believe all of us in Seattle, no matter what our income level, can learn a new behavior. It takes time to make a new habit a routine, but it can be done.

Clearly, more thought needs to be put into figuring out what kind of reusable bag will work best for the poor and homeless in Seattle. However, the livelihood of the poor around the world is far more important than the "inconvenience" of bringing along a reusable bag.

-- Kimberly Christensen, Seattle

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

Seattle a pioneer of reusable bag use

After reading the article, "20 cents per bag: Would it change our behavior?" [page one, July 18], I find myself questioning a few things.

I think it is amazing that Seattle is one of the pioneers on reusable shopping bags. We have always been a fairly green city. Because of this, I wonder why there is so much backlash against this new plastic-bag tax?

Surely, 20 cents seems a bit steep, but it's definitely an incentive to purchase reusable bags that only cost a few initial dollars while providing a lifetime of saving the environment.

It's a simple solution to the problem we see today with plastic bags, among other items, ending up in landfills across the country. There is no excuse, especially if Seattle is offering a free tote for every family. Sure, it will be a hassle at first, but I think this will revolutionize how we shop.

Keep the green coming!

-- Brittany Gerhart, Renton

With enforcement, bad habits changed for betterment of all

In the past year or so, many excellent local and state rulings have provided better structure for our safety and quality of life but little or no publicity or enforcement has occurred to provide motivation to change old habits.

Some examples: continued texting and cellphone use while driving, little or no public knowledge of the 3-foot clearance rule for cyclists and pedestrians and continued restaurant use of styrofoam containers in Seattle.

Now, voters will be inundated with propaganda from the American Chemistry Council and others to eliminate the fee for using plastic bags, reversing a positive and progressive environmental commitment we have made to lessen the impact of plastics in Puget Sound and in the oceans.

To make positive changes for public safety and better quality of life -- any change, individually or collectively -- takes enormous will and effort to rise above old habits and behaviors.

It helps to be informed and understand the reasons for these new positions. Sometimes it takes the discipline of law enforcement to encourage better behavior.
With collective, conscious choices to be and do better as human beings, there will always be some hesitation and resistance -- but making evolutionary changes is a certain part of moving upward and forward in learning to live more harmoniously with our planet and one another.

If internal motivation doesn't provide enough discipline to do what is right, external enforcement can close the gap. Despite how I personally favor less legal interference in personal lives, improving our collective future must be a higher priority.

-- Denise Mannino, Kirkland

Dirty bags in the grocery store? No thanks, bag tax

Editor, The Times:

While shopping the other day in a local supermarket I put some corn on the cob on the conveyor belt unwrapped. The clerk told me I should bag everything before putting it on that belt. Since people started bringing in their own bags, they said, you wouldn't believe how filthy some of them are, even with cat urine on them. These reusable bags go on the counter where people put their food items. What a thought.

Maybe it would make more sense for our elected officials to worry about public health and begin considering a ban on the use of personal containers in stores that sell groceries.

-- Joan Benze, Silverdale

Outside funds lose my vote against bag tax

I'm almost sorry I don't live in the city of Seattle to vote on the referendum to overturn the proposed bag tax.

I'm not naturally disposed to being enthusiastic for the proposed tax and might be inclined to support the referendum against it if I could. But the outside interference and the outlandish amounts of money ["$500,000 given to stop 20 cent bag fee," page one, July 21] from obviously biased supporters to pass this referendum would make me reconsider my vote in an instant.

I would hope voters in Seattle are equally incensed in this blatant power play to buy an election to vote this referendum down. Any thinking person should realize the upcoming outlandish scare tactics will be nonsense and will consider it an insult to think they can be so easily swayed.

-- Brian Hogan, Kent

Bag tax offers little inconvenience, potential for jobs

I'm all for the bag tax. I think it would create a tremendous amount of jobs in Seattle. Think of all the homeless and the formerly low-paid unemployed who would congregate outside supermarkets and other establishments with quantities of used plastic bags for sale for five or 10 cents each.

We always have three canvas shopping bags in the car. If we forget to take one into the supermarket, as often happens, we either carry our purchases out in our hands or, if too large a quantity, while one stands in line for the cashier the other goes to the car, gets the bags and always returns in time to prevent anyone else in line from waiting.
Vote "Yes!"

-- Val Herman, Bremerton

Legalize marijuana, tax it and move on

With so many truly important issues facing our country today --two wars, a global economic crisis, nuclear weapons in Korea, bank closings, corporate scandals, health-care costs, budget deficits, etc. -- it astounds me that our government and the media continue to rehash minor issues.

This time it is marijuana legalization. Hopefully the rhetoric is a prelude to correcting a mistake made many years ago. Nothing new has been added to this discussion in decades, other than "now we need the tax money."

Opponents to legalization say more study is needed to determine the health risks. I say look around you. The second-largest drug study ever was conducted in the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s and '00s, second only to that done on cigarettes.

We all know the answer. Just look at the Netherlands, Switzerland, Oakland and Northern California for examples. The only troubling connection I have found is between marijuana policy and politicians looking for a campaign issue.

I challenge all our government officials to become leaders. Stand up -- there can't be any of you left that haven't inhaled, and you are all successful. Be brave -- even President Obama admits the truth.

Regain your credibility, and correct the mistake. Legalize marijuana, tax it and let's move on.

-- Tom Baker, Woodinville

Money is no reason to legalize marijuana

It appears that some who decried the supposed lack of "science-based" policy from the Bush administration seem to have forgotten their own verbiage.

California's marijuana industry is thriving ["California finds pot is a huge cash cow," page one, July 19], and it now appears pot can cure allergies, insomnia, throat inflammation and sugar cravings.

It's a miracle drug! Does it cure impotence too? Oops. Not from what those pesky scientists have said.

Where's the science to support any of this? If marijuana cures allergies, that would be front-page news. Insomnia? Get real. The truth is that people use the science argument only when the views of one party disagree with their own. In the words of one man who gets his weed with a doctor's note, this whole policy is a joke that just legalizes what people already wanted. Medicine has nothing to do with it.

And never mind the environmental degradation, the used-up farmland and wasted water, the thriving and murderous criminal cartels that won't pay taxes anyway and the populations sedated into apathy and complacence.

The reason for all this? It's also green, but you can't smoke it, though you can burn through it pretty fast.

Governments are pressured to sign on to this for one reason: money. And when money is the primary motivation for making wholesale changes to criminal and social policies, I think that ought to be a major cause for concern.

-- Dan Magill, Seattle

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

Current system rations care by income

Editor, The Times:

Who will say no? Right now, health care is being rationed -- by cigar-smoking CEOs behind the closed doors of corporate offices. Wouldn't it be wiser, fairer and more American to take these tough decisions out of the boardroom and put them in the hands of professionals, patients and the public?

Should care be guided by unregulated profit motives or by science, compassion and rational policy? Insurance profiteers and conservative fear mongers always raise the specter of rationing when they feel threatened by rational health-care reform.

The truth is that we ration health care now -- mostly by wealth, employment and age. The question is: Should we ration by income or by outcome?

-- William R. Phillips, M.D., Seattle

Compared with private insurance, public option is cheap

Republicans love to tell you that President Obama's plan will cost more than a trillion dollars a year. What they don't tell you is that Americans are now paying more than $2.5 trillion a year on private health insurance!

That's more than twice as much! So, Obama is saving us $1.5 trillion.

-- Rob Moitoza, Seattle

End the tax cuts for wealthy to pay for new health care

The dilemma of where the money will come from to pay for single-payer government-provided health care seems to be escaping the fiscally responsible members of Congress. How about repealing the Republican George W. Bush-era tax cuts for the richest of our society, which have a 10-year cost of $1.7 trillion.

Why are Republicans doing all they can to push for a bipartisan health-care bill? We remember during the Bush administration there was no such thing as bipartisanship. They pushed, shoved and bullied the Democrats for eight years.

Congress must pay attention: 75 percent of voter want government-supplied health care of one kind or another. Private insurance is a complete failure and has been for quite some time.

-- Anne and Bill Dillon, Kent

U.S., don't let yourself be lied to about Canadian health care

Mary Scott from Mount Vernon wrote to The Vancouver Sun recently asking for comments from Canadians about the health care here in Canada and whether U.S. citizens are being lied to.

Wake up neighbors! Weren't you lied to about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Why do you continue to believe outright and blatant lies so easily?

While there are some people who fall through the cracks or are dissatisfied with almost everything, I believe our health care is far superior to that of the United States overall.

You can bet those "dissatisfied Canadians" who are giving testimony of bad experiences on TV and elsewhere are getting paid handsomely by vested interests in the U.S.

-- Patricia Rust, Surrey, B.C.

Medicare 'efficient'? Those aren't the words I would use

In Michael Dean's letter to the editor ["My government coverage works," Northwest Voices, July 20], he claims Medicare is a government insurance program that works and is "very efficient." Dean either forgets or chooses to ignore several facts about Medicare.
First, the Medicare fund will be completely out of money in 2017. This means cuts to benefits, higher premiums, higher taxes or all three.

Second, many doctors are refusing to accept or severely limiting the number of new Medicare patients they accept because of Medicare's low reimbursement rates.

Third, Medicare is far from efficient. Billions of dollars of fraud goes undetected every year. The government spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to fight Medicare fraud and abuse and only scrapes the surface of the problem.

Fourth, the medical-insurance plan President Obama and the Democrats want to pass will be financed in part by large cuts to Medicare benefits.

-- Jack Hurley, Bellevue

Medicare costs climb with add-on coverage

Michael Dean stated that he pays $31 per month to AARP for an insurance policy that covers the 20 percent of Medicare Part B costs not covered by Medicare.

This must be incorrect. The AARP Web site lists a monthly premium of $155.25 for Plan F, which is probably the most commonly purchased plan. The cheapest one available from AARP, Plan A, which covers the least, is $93 per month. This is in addition to a $97 per month charge taken out of Social Security checks.

Finally, he does not list the cost for the Medicare Part D prescription-drug plan, which again has a range of prices depending on insurer and coverage, but the best we could do after a thorough search by computer is $21.60 per month.

Altogether, this comes to $273.85 per person each month -- for the retired couple $547.70. This total does not cover long-term care, like in a nursing home. Such additional insurance would add greatly to the monthly premiums and be out of the range of most retirees.

We are both on Medicare, and we support a public health-care option for those not eligible for Medicare, but it is important that all the costs and what is covered are perfectly clear.

-- David and Renate Stage, Seattle

Want competition? Government is already preventing it

President Obama is right: We need more competition in the health-care industry. Many areas of the country lack adequate competition in health-care plans.

But what puzzles me is why he believes we need the government to provide competition -- after all, it's government itself that is preventing competition.

Currently, many states bar individuals from buying out-of-state insurance plans that don't meet state regulations. If the president is really serious about increasing competition, why doesn't he call for allowing individuals to buy health-insurance plans out-of-state?

This would surely increase the number of plans available to people while forcing insurance companies to reduce their prices to compete.

-- Preston Mui, Sammamish

What single-payer health care should look like

I am a nurse practitioner working at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. I specialize in diabetes management and work closely with patients with chronic illness, many who are uninsured or underinsured, many whom deal with poverty, who deal with financial burdens from their illness or who don't treat their treatable illness due to lack of funds.

My dream for health-care reform is:

• Single payer is the only solution. I see no problem with no more insurance companies. The amount of monetary as well as time waste the current system has, given administrative costs, is extraordinary.

• Medical health includes dental health and mental health. We cannot separate these.

• Increased taxes to support these are fine with me, as I will both personally feel more protected, and I will be able to do my job so much better if my patients are protected.

• The system needs to be portable between states. We often see patients flown in from out of state for trauma care. A seamless system will not allow for cracks such as this.

• A "smart card" or other such device should be made to give medical history as well as prescriptions filled so this information can be shared between clinics, hospitals and pharmacies. This will significantly help to improve medication safety.

• Chronic illness management, in our current system, will continue to cripple our nation unless we make drastic reform. A nationwide approach with one payer is the only sound fiscal option to fully address this pink elephant in the middle of our living room.

-- Louise Suhr, Seattle

Canadians do indeed pay for health care

No less than three times did your article on Canada's health care ["Myths, truths of Canada's universal coverage," page one, July 21] mention that "government is paying" for Canadian health care.

I believe it is the Canadian people, the ones who, according to the article, "pay higher sales taxes -- up to twice as much," that are footing those bills. The idea that a "patient never sees a bill" is disingenuous.

Of course they do -- with every purchase and tax. The article also compares the "bills" between Canadian procedures and U.S. procedures, intimating that this is comparing the costs of the procedures.

Again, this is disingenuous. The actual costs of these procedures is never mentioned, only the bill the patient is responsible for. One could truly compare the two systems if the actual costs were compared.

-- Dana Keith, Auburn

Why stop with just bags?

Editor, The Times:

If plastic and paper bags are so bad that the city of Seattle wants to make a 20 cent per bag tax, why stop there? How about the plastic bags The Seattle Times comes in? The city of Seattle could charge The Times 20 cents a bag for each of those. Or if you don't want a wet newspaper, a 20 cent fee per delivery could be added to subscribers' bills.

Or how about all those disposable diapers that really clog up the landfill? We could charge an extra 20 cents a box for those. Would that change people's behavior?

What about Starbucks? Shouldn't there be a charge for the disposable cups they use and maybe an extra charge for the lids? What about the paper or plastic bag you carry out of fast-food restaurants? Shouldn't those also be included in this behavioral-modification effort? How about all the consumers who buy plastic bags to put their garbage in, or even worse, buy bottled water?

I'm happy I do not live in the city of Seattle. I don't think it's the government's role to change people's behavior.

And just so you know where I'm coming from, I used diaper service 25 years ago before it was considered green. I have reusable bags for my groceries, I use cloth napkins almost exclusively, I use the newspaper bags from The Seattle Times to scoop after my dogs and I actually prefer the coffee shops that have a real ceramic cup for my latte.

I also think it's a great incentive that Fred Meyer deducts 5 cents from my grocery bill for every bag I bring in and Trader Joes enters my name in a drawing each time I remember my own bags. Personally, I prefer the positive approach!

-- Sally Bastine, Sammamish

It's a tax, not a fee

I believe it is journalistically dishonest and irresponsible in your article ["20 cents per bag: Would it change our behavior?" page one, July 18] to repeatedly refer to the proposed bag tax as a "fee."

A fee is something one pays for a product or service. A tax is a charge imposed by authority upon persons or property for a public purpose. This charge unequivocally meets the definition of a tax, as this is clearly an "add on" by the city to the customer, who otherwise would not incur a specific charge for this product.

-- Larry Merkle, Seattle

Will public officials pay for my multiuse plastic bags?

The article on charging for plastic bags doesn't mention that Portland Mayor Sam Adams has banned the plastic-bag tax as an undue burden on the poor. This is no different from Seattle's Referendum 1.

This is another regressive tax that nickels and dimes Seattle's poorest citizens. I invite Seattle's altruistic mayor and City Council to pay my plastic-bag fee out of their incomes.
Surviving on Social Security, I can't afford new fees or taxes of any kind. The virtually leakproof plastic bag comes in with the groceries and goes out with the garbage in it.

There's not a more useful, convenient item than the plastic bag. Therefore, I'll vote against the bag tax.

-- Bob Miller, 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

Support small business, not punish it

The recent Seattle Times editorial advocating for new sales taxes on Internet retailers headlined "Sales-tax collections should be consistent" [Opinion, July 10] misses the mark. The "streamlined sales tax" it mentions would force small online businesses across Washington -- and the country -- to comply with complex tax laws from every tax jurisdiction in every state. These measures would impose significant new costs and accounting burdens for small Internet retailers, which could force them out of business.

Do not lose sight of the changing face of retail in recent decades. Mega-retail giants have pushed many small businesses off Main Street USA. Many small retailers, individual entrepreneurs and family businesses found the Internet made survival possible. The Internet is a small-business success story.

I think most of your readers would agree that it does not make sense to increase taxes on small businesses in such a tough economy. Treating small retailers -- some with just a handful of employees -- the same as a mega-retailer with hundreds of accountants and tax professionals is a recipe for disaster.

Instead of measures that are sure to stunt growth, we should be thinking of ways to help small businesses grow and empower consumers.

-- Tod Cohen, eBay Inc. vice president for government relations

Green Bag Campaign will save money in the long run

The Green Bag Campaign allows Seattleites to responsibly choose to reduce plastic waste in the Puget Sound and do our part in promoting an economy that does not rely heavily upon petroleum-produced bags with a 15-minute shelf life.

The fee collected allots for education of the general public and for millions of reusable bags to be purchased and dispersed for free or minimal cost. The slight inconvenience of purchasing plastic bags at grocery and convenience stores in the Seattle area is insignificant when compared with the millions of dollars that taxpayers spend each year cleaning up trash -- plenty of which is plastic bags -- in the Puget Sound area.

I urge fellow Seattleites to consider how beneficial the bag fee would be for this city and to vote for positive change this November.

-- Rachel Erstad, Seattle

Taxing bags aims to punish

Taxation to punish is wrong. Mayor Greg Nickels and the City Council have tried to punish those of us who disagree with environmental zealots by imposing a 20-cent tax on each bag of groceries or prescription drugs we purchase. As President Obama taught Congress when the national legislators wanted to pass a special tax punishing bankers for receiving exorbitant bonuses, taxation is not a proper vehicle to punish the opposition.

On Aug. 18, the primary ballot will include the bag tax. Please vote against it because it will increase the cost of groceries and prescription drugs.

Besides the cost issue, there is a fairness issue and a social concern. Is it fair that I would not pay this tax if I bought hair spray at a beauty salon but would pay this tax when they placed my hair spray purchase in a plastic sack at a grocery store?

Besides being unfair and a tax imposed to punish, my biggest concern is for seniors, of which I am one, and middle-to-low-income residents. We have the least ability to pay this tax. Imagine the squabbles with the bag boys and girls at the checkout stand when the clerk rings up the cost of each bag. And while the baggers can now divide the heavy stuff and make each bag manageable, if we are forced to load all into one or a few cloth bags, they will become too heavy for seniors to carry.

This is a horrible example of how environmental zealots drive the government of this city.

-- Kenneth F. Bertrand, Seattle

Appeals process a tough fight for homeowners

In response to the article on property assessments ["Property taxes: Appeals shoot up," page one, July 5]: It may be true that only a very small percentage of homeowners actually appeal assessed values, but that doesn't mean the vast majority believe the assessment is fair and equitable.

Very few owners have the time and money to go through the appeals process. Those who have done so found the process heavily weighted against the owner. And when an owner does gain a reduction in the assessment, the assessor often reverts to his original assessment the following year, requiring the owner to go through the process again.

Does a state audit prove the bulk of home sales are really within 5 percent of the assessed value? What I saw was a listing of assessments and sales in which assessments were arrived at after the sales, and in which high assessments and low assessments were all added together, thus averaging the highs and lows and giving no true indicator of error.

-- Tom Difloe, Camano Island

Tax cars and energy use, not houses

Granted, truly courageous politicians are as scarce as 300-pound Tour de France riders, but now is the time for a brave move to replace the volatile, subjective, almost always highly resented residential property tax with a system of energy-use taxes based on square footage and power source as well as a passenger-car gasoline tax more in line with the rest of the industrialized world.

We should tax people less for what they own and more for what they use. Yes, this is a regressive tax and the lack of a property levy may encourage more speculation in housing stock and drive prices up. But it could be coupled with limits on rents and on the selling price of property.

-- David Feldman, Vancouver

Assessors aren't gouging property owners

Lynn Thompson is incorrect, or at least misleading, when she writes that property taxes go up -- despite declining assessed property values -- when taxing entities such as local government decide to raise the same amount of revenue from one year to the next.
If everyone's assessment goes down at the same rate, all other things being equal, everyone's tax bill would stay the same. My taxes would go up in this scenario only if someone else's property assessment declined more than mine.

I really wish newspaper reporters would be more careful and precise on this matter. Neither the assessors nor the local governments are using the burst housing bubble to gouge property owners out of taxes.

-- Mike Stanger, Kirkland

Bring back Bill Clinton's tax sanity

"National sales tax idea getting fresh look" [page one, May 28] was headlined incorrectly. There is nothing "fresh" about this right-wing tactic to tax the middle class and poor into extinction.

As the article states, a value added tax (VAT) is "hugely regressive." OK, it's hugely regressive, would decrease the taxes of the wealthiest on the planet and other countries do it, so what's not to like about it? Maybe there is another way to tackle our problems.

Former President Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and lowered them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history and produced budgetary surpluses, allowing the government to begin paying the massive debt left by Ronald Reagan. Clinton left the Bush administration with a $236 billion budget surplus and a forecast 10-year year surplus estimated at $5.6 trillion.

In 2002, Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill confronted Vice President Cheney about Bush's proposal to cut taxes by another $674 billion dollars, stating the country was "moving toward a fiscal crisis." The Vice President's retort? "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

We don't need a VAT. We need the same "tax sanity" Bill Clinton used.

-- Larry Dennison, Port Townsend

Congress' efforts do little to bail out anything

In response to "National sales tax idea getting fresh look" on May 28 [page one]: Are we just kidding ourselves on the role of government and its opinion of spending tax money?

When we first started the auto bailout, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that GM and Chrysler declaring bankruptcy was off the table. Billions of dollars later, GM is declaring bankruptcy --wow! Congress wants more tax money!

We need to get a grip and realize that they can only ruin health care and will further damage our economic future as we spend with no remorse.

-- Todd Welch, Everett

Put your car where your mouth is

Now that President Obama also chairs Government Motors (formerly General Motors) ["The new GM -- Government Motors?" seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, May 27], will the liberal "glitterati" trade in their Benzes for Chevrolets? Will they trade their Maseratis for Malibus? Will Seattleites trade their Volvos for Camaros?

-- John Hession, Redmond

Would remedy our global trade disadvantage

There is another reason for considering the value-added tax (VAT) ["National sales tax idea getting fresh look," page one, May 28]: It would make us more competitive in the global marketplace.

At present, under World Trade Organization rules, our trading partners, who rely principally on the VAT, can exempt their exports from the VAT and charge a "border tax" equivalent to the VAT on imports. Since the average VAT is about 20 percent, this puts us at a great disadvantage.

The VAT could be made less regressive by giving to everyone a tax rebate that would be equivalent to what those in poverty would pay. It would have the added benefit of eliminating the underground economy, which accounts for many billions in taxes that are evaded. It would also largely eliminate the IRS from most people's lives, since the VAT is collected from businesses.

-- Edward Golden, Everett

Hope our senators side with taxpayers

Tuesday, President Obama proposed curbing offshore tax havens ["Obama targets foreign havens," page one, May 5] -- a necessary step that will help reduce the tax burden for the middle class and others who are least able to pay.

Microsoft is one company that probably would pay higher taxes as a result. This step needs congressional approval. Unfortunately, both of our senators have shown a preference for rich taxpayers -- witness the recent votes of both Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell to protect wealthy individuals from estate taxes, two of just a few Senate democrats who supported this unjust legislation. The net result of their votes is that wealthy individuals will pay less tax and lower-income citizens will have to pay more.

Let's hope that Sens. Murray and Cantwell take the side of the average taxpayer this time and don't choose to shill for Microsoft, other corporations and the well-heeled who take advantage of offshore tax shelters.

-- Lee Daneker, Seattle

Difference between avoiding and evading

Our president continues to hog the limelight and push his class-warfare agenda by attacking multinational companies (Microsoft, Google, HP, IBM, Cisco, etc.) for not paying enough taxes. They are avoiding taxes (legal), not evading taxes (illegal) like six of his nominees, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who were all cheating on their taxes until nominated by Obama.

He says all this with a straight face. With the mainstream media not holding him accountable, he knows he can say and do anything to dumb Americans who primarily thrive on emotional statements.

These legal tax approaches include why some companies locate and incorporate in certain states within the U.S. All these legal loopholes could be avoided if the country moved to the FairTax (a consumption tax) and away from the income tax.

-- Dick Applestone, Bellevue

Important projects are not tax burdens

Your opinion page on April 29 was very interesting.

Bruce Ramsey's column talked about the tea-party movement of frustrated taxpayers who think they are overburdened ["Tea-party frustration had real roots," Opinion]. The nearby editorials talked about:

• The progress we've made to prepare for public-health threats ["Ready for swine flu," editorial] --federal, state, county and perhaps local governments paid for that.
• Preservation of 7,000 acres of forestland in King County ["Nurturing a verdant vision," editorial] --paid for by state and county governments.
• Coming redevelopment of the Seattle waterfront for public use ["Harnessing the potential of Seattle's waterfront," Cary Bozeman guest commentary] --paid for by state, county and local governments.

Those are but a very few of the things we taxpayers are "burdened" to pay for -- but they're things that are important to our lives and that we as individuals need to band together to pay for. The banding together is what paying taxes is all about.

-- Linnea Hirst, Seattle

Point of tea parties shrouded by hypocrisy

What gets me about Bruce Ramsey's mock indignation (read: hypocrisy) about the Obama administration's spending is the fact that he wasn't expressing the same indignation about the deficit spending of the Bush administration that got us into this mess.

Where were the protests about the deficits created by decreasing taxes on the rich? Where were all the protests about the fraud and corruption and outright theft of taxpayer dollars from no-bid contracts for the Iraq war? Where were all the protests about the deregulation of the finance industry that now jeopardizes the flow of credit and devalues our currency?

The tea-party participants had several years to protest these things, and yet they only protest the actions of the president who's actually trying to fix the situation.

The irony of the tea parties is that they occurred after Obama approved far-reaching middle class tax cuts. This is why the majority of Americans don't view the tea-party participants' issues as valid --we know hypocrisy when we see it.

-- Laura R. Standley, Des Moines

Tea protesters are out-of-touch minority

The theme of the original Boston Tea Party was, "Taxation without representation is tyranny." What is not tyranny is taxation with representation, laws and policies enacted by a democratically elected legislature representing the will of the electorate.

The great majority of this state, and this country, support President Obama and the various Democratic legislative bodies. This is borne out by the overwhelming majorities we saw in the most recent election and the subsequent opinion polls.

Bruce Ramsey and his political allies certainly have the right to demonstrate their views, but not to complain about mistreatment when they are not shared by the majority, the way a 5-year-old defines "unfair" as "whatever opposes my interests." The 5,000 protesters in Olympia were not the vanguard of a great populist rebellion, but the dwindled-down core of true believers, representing no one but themselves.

The right enjoyed eight years of leadership under President Bush, the first six controlling all three branches of government. We all know how disastrous this has been for our country. Now, after only 100 days in a Democratic administration, we hear conservative commentators treasonously espousing armed rebellion, the governor of Texas treasonously endorsing secession, and pundits like Ramsey recalling the Revolutionary War.

Perhaps it's time to stop giving such fringe voices outlets like your editorial page for their increasingly out-of-touch rants.

-- Joel Schwartz, 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

Want to raise money? Write a check

I was very happy to hear how much concern Helen Donnelly Goehring has for the children, the uninsured and the homeless of our state, as do I. However, I was more impressed by her passion and willingness to "gladly put an item in her budget for taxes," but only if we had a new state income tax to help her do it ["Tacking state's budget deficit: Government needs to be frugal," Northwest Voices, Opinion, April 19].

Goehring, I can help you start raising the money right away without an income tax. Ready? Write your own check and send it to Olympia. Yes, it's that easy! Figure out your amount and mail it in.

Why do you need the state to pass an income tax for you to give more? Do you need someone else to tell you to give? I'm sure you don't, and I'm sure Olympia will gladly take your money.

I can tell from your strong feelings in your letter that this is important to you so I know you want to get moving on this. Take the lead and get your check in the mail today!

-- Chris Caile, Sammamish

Reminder to support social programs

The outpouring of support for Gene Sargent, an older gentleman whose misfortune was reported in The Times, shows that people have compassion for those who have fallen on hard times ["Help rolls in for senior living in truck," page one, April 20].

But, sadly, there are too many people in need for The Times to report on each individually. That is why we pay taxes to support social programs.

-- Ellen Koretz Whitton, Seattle

Situation creates tough education choices

Having completed my fifth 10-hour day this week in my first-grade classroom, I was asked by my district to complete an online survey which asked questions such as, "What is more important, class size or busing? What is more important, new textbooks or tech support? What is more important, school secretarial support or lunchroom and playground support?"

Believe me, having to choose what is more important from a list where all of the items are critical to the education of my students was not a fun way to finish a tough week.

Washington state already has the fourth-largest class size in the nation and is only thirty-third in per-pupil spending. We have been trying to do more with less for the last 10 years, and now we are facing more cuts.

During spring break, an article in the Las Vegas Sun caught my eye: "What rich don't spend, Nevada leaves untaxed." It was an article on regressive state tax systems. Yes, Washington state was at the top of that list because it does not have an income tax. Why? Because our governor and legislators are so worried that they won't get re-elected that they won't even propose getting an income tax on the ballot.

So now we are trying to run a state on sales taxes during a recession. The result is cuts in every single program in our state -- programs that will affect every schoolchild, senior citizen, person who drives on a highway, or family that would like to go camping at a state park.

I'm happy to pay taxes to support programs that I cannot provide for my family. I cannot build roads, maintain parks, educate children, or take care of our sick, elderly and neglected. These are jobs that must be done and should be done by all of us collectively through our state government. These programs cost money and all of us should have the opportunity to pay our fair share.

If our governor and legislators are afraid to present a state income tax system to our voters, I for one know what I will be doing next election day. I will be voting for someone who has the courage to solve our state's antiquated tax system.

-- Karen Anderson, Shoreline

Sales tax a double-edged sword

Isn't it ironic that the people who will allegedly benefit from an increase in the sales tax recommended to go before the voters in the fall are the same people who will also suffer the negative effects? It's a double-edged sword for the senior citizens, low-income and disabled being cared for at home when they have to pay the increased sales tax on prescribed medical equipment while their neighbors in 47 other states do not pay sales tax on these items.

Why can't the legislators in Olympia get the tax issues and their priorities right? Why do they vote for an exemption on hybrid cars, which can be more than $3,000, and continue to ignore this inequitable tax?

Why does Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown continue to talk about fairness to the citizens of this state and not address the issue of this unjust tax? ["Brown: Fairness, not politics driving income-tax pitch," page one, April 17] After nine years of trying to get it removed, it's time that all in the Legislature put their votes where their rhetoric is and get rid of this tax once and for all.

Maybe then some of us will believe that our legislators really mean what they are saying about fairness to all citizens.

-- Nancy S. Campbell, Mill Creek

Higher taxes will help strained populace

While demonstrations usually result from whipped-up emotions, we expect editorials to come from thoughtful analysis. Not so in "No more taxes" [Opinion, editorial, April 19]. To the contrary, this is exactly the time to raise taxes on an already strained populace, tens of thousands of whom are about to be cut off from life or livelihood services that the more fortunate of us take for granted.

To claim that it is a "hurting government" that wants to "shift the hurt somewhere else" is irresponsible. The "government" that is hurting is we, the people, who need help the most in bad times. "Shifting the hurt somewhere else" is simply to recognize that we are all in this together and that there, but for the grace of God, go the rest of us.

If you were one of the tens of thousands of Washingtonians who are about to lose medical care, prescription drugs, home nursing, school lunches, a chance to attend community college -- all from no fault of your own -- you would see it differently. We expect more from The Seattle Times.

-- Richard Chapin, Bellevue

Population growth demands sacrifice

Your tired replay of the "no more taxes" mantra is just the continuance of the Reagan-era trick that worked well for a time. Distrust in government and focus on the myth of individualism ultimately focused wealth on the powerful. The irony here is that Reagan, Bush, et al, as part of the power structure, presented themselves as the common man to push this agenda.

People are starting to figure that out. Some individual sacrifice is required for large populations to live together. Has anybody noticed the population increase in just the past hundred years? Fewer and fewer of us are living in cabins in the woods, but the mythology of the rugged individual still strikes a chord here in the Northwest.

The abandonment of any active governmental policies regarding large populations (ecology, population control) by Bush also worked to the advantage of the "haves," but only for so long -- short-term thinking being another attribute of all this.

That old 1960s term "establishment" comes to mind, which, of course, is what your newspaper represents. The times, they are a-changing.

-- Will Kaufman, Kirkland

Socialism a welcome change

The quote from state Sen. Janea Holmquist at the tax day tea party --that the Democrats are lurching toward socialism -- is extremely silly ["Tax rallies say: Enough already," page one, April 16].

The Democrats are giving away free money to the banks, building up troops and spending our tax money in Afghanistan and Iraq, presiding over draconian budget cuts of our social services, forcing unpaid furloughs on public workers, and have not even passed the Employee Free Choice Act or the state worker privacy act.

If they were edging toward socialism, people could expect higher taxes on the rich and large corporations, pulling out our troops from the many countries where we are killing and being killed, instituting free health care for all without the profit-gobbling insurance companies, a moratorium on foreclosures and a lot more.

I welcome socialism, especially in comparison to right-wing demonstrations that pretend to be for struggling workers.

-- Adrienne Weller, Seattle

Fair share of taxes no longer fair

The letter protesting the tax-day protests was blatantly incorrect in depicting Republicans ["Tax day tea protests: Shared sacrifice," Opinion, Northwest Voices, April 17]. Why do so many people seem to think that conservative Republicans are rich? Where does this mentality come from?

I do not know one single person in this category, and never have in the 35 years I have been a Republican, who isn't just as hardworking as any other American. They are low- to middle-class wage-earners, as my husband and I are. We are third- and fourth-generation Seattleites and both of our parents were Democrats when we were growing up, but as the party went further away from the middle and to the far left, they become Republicans, as did we.

I do not know anyone who doesn't want to pay his fair share of taxes, but our fair share is no longer fair. My husband and I live in a very modest home and work very hard for what used to be good wages. Our cars are eight and 14 years old. The world has passed us by, however, and we no longer feel middle class.

We have taken out the maximum tax at the higher single rate in our paychecks for at least 15 years and the only time we received a tax refund was when President Bush changed the married penalty tax. We received a $200 refund.

The facts stand: We work longer and harder to pay our taxes than any other time in the history of the U.S. The government infringes on our wages more each decade. I have worked in the government field and in the medical field and the spending mentality I witnessed in the government arena was appalling. No thought was given as to whose money was being spent.

The government doesn't ask us for a small amount of our wages, and the amount continues to grow. Where does it end?

-- Robin Snyder, Seattle

Unfair, predatory proposal

How dare Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown characterize her call for an income tax targeting a certain segment of the population as one based in fairness? ["Brown: Fairness, not politics driving income-tax pitch," News, April 17] How is it fair to prey on a group of citizens because "they can afford it"? That is patently disingenuous.

A small-business owner making $250,000 is moderately successful. Politician after politician touts how we need small businesses to drive the economy and create jobs. This income tax would unfairly penalize those who are the most productive and successful in making our economy work.

Brown is taking the next step in fostering class envy as a way to manipulate her voting base into supporting Olympia's wholly irresponsible policies. Washington state government has consistently grown faster than its population. Despite built-in revenue increases that come from escalating prices and a growing population, there is never enough money to satisfy Olympia's appetite.

Despite our historical boom-or-bust economic cycles, Olympia insists on budgeting based on the high-water mark of projected revenues, and then cries foul when the economy takes a downturn and the revenues don't hold up.

I frankly agree that the sales tax is very regressive, but attempting to address its inequities by tacking on an additional income tax on a particular segment of our citizens is just wrong, sets a very dangerous precedent and opens itself up for severe unintended consequences.

Remember when the rich were targeted with the luxury tax on boats? It cost hundreds of boat-builders their jobs and almost permanently destroyed the boatbuilding industry in Washington.

If Brown believes we need a fairer tax system built on an income tax, then she should have the courage of her convictions and propose that. She shouldn't propose what she thinks she might be able to sell based on the class envy that has been cultivated over the past couple of decades.

-- Mark Ursino, Sammamish

Preferable to sales tax

Debate regarding a Washington state income tax broils again. While it is true that many of us have voted down an income tax, the common erroneous conclusion is that we prefer a sales tax.

The sales tax is regressive and especially burdensome on the poor. An income tax provides a much more equitable system based on ability to support governmental needs and programs.

What I oppose is both a sales tax and an income tax. This is a recipe for a double squeeze on the taxpayer. If legislation were proposed to do away with the sales tax and replace it with an income tax, I would support that in heartbeat.

-- David Rogerson, Redmond

Real protests against inefficient, unresponsive government

Editor, The Times:

The tea parties are very real protests ["Tax rallies say: Enough already," page one, April 16]. Fry cooks to physicians from a broad range of political backgrounds are very sincere in their concern for the future freedom -- both physical and economic -- of this nation. These people, most of whom have never protested, say they feel our nation is in such peril that they are compelled to protest.

Harry Cabluck / The Associated Press

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, foreground, speaks to the crowd during a "Don't Mess With Texas" tea0party rally at Austin City Hall Wednesday

We are saying that the government is out of control. This isn't merely a response to President Obama. It is a response to a government that is decreasingly concerned about the people it represents. It is also a warning to our elected officials to either represent their constituents responsibly or be voted out of office.

Why are people upset? Here are a few examples: The tax cut was provided by borrowing money; our national debt is skyrocketing; the stimulus package passed before legislators had time to read it; inefficient local and state governments are trying to raise taxes rather than working effectively; our government is relinquishing U.S. sovereignty to the international community, one treaty at a time.

Suffice it to say that the recent changes are simply the straws that broke the camel's back.

-- Gail Dutton, Montesano

Protesters on the wrong side of history

It was almost amusing, if not so sad, watching conservatives and Fox News hold their 750 tea parties on April 15. In classic conservative fashion, they passionately protested issues that exist only in their own paranoid imaginations.

The real facts are that taxes are the lowest they've been in decades, and the majority of recently polled Americans felt that they're paying about the right amount. Furthermore, as he's repeatedly stated, President Obama has no plans whatsoever to raise taxes on the vast majority of Americans (95 percent), but has already lowered them further. And yet incredulously -- but predictably -- here were thousands of pious Republicans following their leaders in protest against Obama and a slew of conjured pet issues that they love to hate.

Obama has been an excellent and unprecedented president in his short 90 days, collaborating with the best minds in the country, aggressively tackling a difficult economic crisis with wise and proactive long-term solutions, brokering deals and amending tattered global alliances, and doing everything with an emphasis on honesty, transparency and the greater interest of all Americans.

And how have Republicans responded to this? By characteristically attacking every bold, intelligent action with tired rhetoric and lies, saying that Obama has repealed the Declaration of Independence (how, exactly?), cut defense funding (he actually increased it 4 percent), and ushered in socialism (a favored sound bite to rile up the conservative masses). It's like watching a mob of drama queens lividly protesting the sky being green, when everyone else knows it's not.

These people are on the wrong side of history, and when my blood isn't boiling from their latest antics, I feel sorry for them.

-- Jarom Shewell, Puyallup

Protesting squandering of tax dollars

Three of the four letters you selected to print Friday on the nationwide tea-party protests sought to belittle and discredit those who participated or supported these efforts ["Tax day tea protests," Northwest Voices, Opinion, April 17]. Why the bias?

One of the anti-tea party letters states that we all pay "a small amount of the money we earn ..." for services/facilities such as fire, parks and schools. Over the past 15 years, I have consistently paid 35 to 55 percent of my income in taxes --federal income tax, Social Security, Medicare, state sales tax, property tax, gas tax, cellphone tax, electric bill tax, park fees, etc. Not only is this beyond "a small amount," it has become very upsetting considering how our public servants squander our money.

Putting aside national issues for a moment, consider our state, county and city administrations, which I believe clearly empathize with the voices that belittle and discredit the tea parties. These administrations have all failed in their fiduciary duties -- they are broke.

In the state's case, while tax revenues are lower than projected, the amount of tax revenue Washington will collect this coming biennium is higher than the past biennium, yet the state is overdrawn by $9-10 billion -- and now the state seeks, guess what, more taxes.

King County is $40-50 million behind, yet continues to give its employees generous raises and does not require that those civil servants share in the cost of their health benefits ["King County's riches," editorial, April 7].

The city of Seattle likewise is overdrawn and cannot even manage to plow its streets when it snows -- except in the mayor's neighborhood.

More and more government services, more and more taxes, more and more feathering of their own nests. This pattern is what the people at the tea parties are protesting.

-- Erick Cody, Sammamish

Solution: pinch pennies from stock trades

While people have been protesting the possibility that future taxes will be raised to pay for federal bailouts and stimulus, an enticing idea has been floated by some economists as a means to cover these future costs. The idea is simple and straightforward: Place a small transaction tax of one penny on every stock-market trade.

In this way you tap speculation (moneymaking) and use it to invest in ventures that create real, long-term wealth (like solar technology or next-generation car batteries). At a very small cost to speculators, the nation could give itself the means to launch a real program for building the industries of tomorrow that it desperately needs. And it wouldn't cost taxpayers anything.

Getting that penny out of the speculators will undoubtedly be a fight. But if the tea-partiers are any indication, working people won't be ponying up the investment money anytime soon. And they shouldn't have to. They've been surrendering their pennies for long enough while they work at companies that create America's wealth.

-- Thomas Sullivan, Seattle

Steve Ringman / The Seattle Times

Several thousand rallied on the steps of the state Capitol in Olympia to protest proposals to increase taxes.

Editor, The Times:

I am appalled by these manufactured tea-party protests ["Tax rallies say: Enough already," page one, April 16]. That there are Americans who are so self-centered that they have no sense of responsibility to America is repulsive.

We live in a country that asks very little of us in the way of sacrifice. There is no draft for national military service to protect this country. There is no requirement that we offer a certain amount of volunteering to make this country a better place.

All that is asked of our citizens is that we provide a small amount of the money we earn to share the cost of basic necessities that would be exorbitantly expensive for each of us alone.

I cannot afford a private firefighting force, but by paying my taxes, I can share in the cost of a fire department that protects my family and me.

I cannot afford a single private acre of recreational land, but by paying my taxes, I can share in the cost of a national-park system that includes such glories as Mount Rainier, Crater Lake and Yellowstone.

I cannot afford private tutors for my children, but by paying my taxes, I can share in the cost of a public-education system that makes a promise to all, not just a few.

Perhaps these elite tea-bag protesters can afford all these things out of their dividend earnings and their offshore bank accounts. But for us ordinary working Americans, we'll do things the old-fashioned way -- through hard work and shared sacrifice.

-- Andrew Hummel-Schluger, Briar

Protesting irresponsible government

At the heart of our American beliefs lies a foundation of independence defined by self-evident truths: that "we the people" are divinely endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and that government's role is to be a servant of "we the people" to secure our God-given rights.

The tax day tea parties, held in protest of the massive stimulus spending, reflect a different reality both for government and "we the people."

Our independence comes at a price, paid with the lives of courageous Americans. We pay that ongoing price because our independence allows us to be individuals who stand united as one nation, indivisible, for a cause we all believe in: freedom. Yet our freedom and its underlying independence reveals one distinguishing fact: It does not come without responsibility.

Responsibility is what makes America great. Yet responsibility is precisely what is missing. None of us can spend our way, with borrowed money, to prosperity. What happened to responsibility?

I stand in protest of the massive stimulus spending approved without our consent. This course of irresponsible government action will inevitably force increased taxes on future generations, restricting liberty and the pursuit of happiness that makes life worth living.

-- Justin Kawabori, Redmond

Taxes are down, dropping

Thanks for your article "Despite 'tea party' tempest, tax burden down, dropping" [News, April 16]. It is critical to publicize the facts.

It is ironic and somewhat tragic that well-meaning citizens can be protesting taxes when their taxes are down and dropping. It shows how people who don't pay close attention can be manipulated like puppets for agendas that benefit others.

If we are to have a country with a future, we need to invest in it as a society. The government needs to invest in our future and we need taxes for that.

The Obama administration is amazing in having managed to initiate so much while reducing our tax burden. That is what we ought to celebrate, not some misguided, stale anti-tax slogan.

-- Leonard Goodisman, Bothell

Tsunami of inflation to come

Are you misled, myopic or repeating the drivel of The New York Times? The inflation/devaluation tsunami is coming on the near horizon as a result of out-of-control spending.

The near-term lower federal tax burden for most is nothing but a sham to lull us to sleep before the "big one." The wave will wash over liberals and conservatives alike. These tea parties were the early warning any thinking American should heed.

Americans, arise! You only have oppressive government (at all levels) to lose.

-- Jack Lay, Kingston

Where was outrage for Iraq spending?

This tea-bag party nonsense does nothing more than further discredit the participants by being more of a blatant display of ignorance and hypocrisy than a demonstration for greater fiscal responsibility.

How quickly these people forget their support of dumping trillions of taxpayer dollars into Iraq, none of which has or ever will benefit any of the average taxpayers here in the U.S. Where was your outrage then?

That money could have been spent to build our own country's infrastructure and prevent this crisis before it happened, but it was squandered on a needless war where the end was never even defined, let alone justified by the means. At least the stimulus is an attempt to help spur our economy back into growth, a potential solution at one of the most pressing problems facing our country, to help all of us get back on our feet someday. When are you going to get it?

You complained over the course of the past eight years when people would not unite behind the president for his war; now you complain because the majority of us are uniting behind the guy who was fairly elected on the platform to fix the mess yours left behind.

-- Patrick Maunder, Seattle

Spending money to rebuild the economy

I am sure that Republicans have a right to complain about the stimulus package in rebuilding our economy. For the past eight years, they have turned a surplus into a deficit. It is just like they have trashed a house and now complain we are spending too much money to rebuild it.

Calling for an anti-government-revolution tea party and not paying taxes doesn't sound patriotic to me.

-- David Chan, Seattle

Protest costs taxpayers even more

From The Huffington Post: "Tea Bag Terror: Protests Causing Scares, Evacuations At Congressional Offices."

Ironic that the tax protesters sending tea bags to Congress ["Tea party to protest excess spending," NW Tuesday, April 14] are actually costing the taxpayers of this nation more money by incurring Homeland Security operations in order to protect our members of Congress from real or pseudo-hazards.

Thanks, protesters. Way to drive home your point.

-- Bert Schulz, Redmond

Part of a right-wing agenda

Where were these tea-bag protesters when George Bush grew our national debt of $5.7 trillion in 2001 to $9.849 trillion in 2008, the biggest debt increase of any U.S. president in history? Where were the protests from these right-wingers?

In addition, you cannot call these tea-bag events a grass-roots protest, since it's being physically coordinated by "fair and balanced" Fox News and funded by FreedomWorks, right-wing Dick Armey's group, whose money comes from Scaife, Koch, Olin, Forbes, Exxon Mobil and other right-wing patrons.

They're trying to create an illusion of frivolous spending that is really just an insult to the intelligence of anyone who's truly following and sees the discrepancies and lies being told by these "tax day tea party" events.

-- Doug Morrison, 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

Pay for the things you care about

I feel the day will come when enough people will see the light and start to call for a progressive state income tax.

It doesn't need to be complicated. The law could require that you provide a copy of your federal tax payment and pay to the state a certain percentage of that.

I lived for more than 40 years in a state with an income tax and do not feel it stunted my growth or caused me to grow strange things on my head. You, too, can join the 21st century and believe in paying for what you consider important -- education, roads, viaducts, tunnels, indigent health care, state care for the mentally handicapped -- you name it, you pay for it. Just like grown-ups.

-- Jack McClurg, Marysville

Income tax beginning of vicious cycle

The Times is right in "State should shift cuts in education to less-urgent programs" [editorial, April 6]. To my fellow residents who think income taxes are the right approach, I have to ask: What are you people thinking?

This year, the Legislature will approach you, the voter. They will say, "Save the parks and, of course, save the children! All you have to do is vote to tax those rich people earning over $500,000." You will vote yes.

Now remember, the feds are doing the same. The same 5 percent of the rich will make all of your dreams come true. But do the rich really have enough to pay for increased taxes at the federal and the state level?

A couple of years from now, the tax revenues will not meet the revenue projections. Our legislators will have spent the money already and need to raise income taxes, blaming the shortfall on the feds. The Legislature will need to raise and expand your income tax. This cycle will continue until everyone is paying an income tax.

Your other taxes will not go down, and our state will look like California. We know how well that worked out!

-- Robert Morgan, Seattle

Taxes needed to provide world-class education

Tax me, and tax me now -- but not without a reduction of the oppressive sales taxes in our state.

When I heard about the proposal for a high-incomes tax, I personally cheered -- for our schoolchildren, seniors, the ill and the middle class in general.

Our state is home to the fourth-wealthiest county in the nation, yet we do not support our public schools like other progressive states. Our schools are near the bottom in per-pupil funding, and too many parents just give up and put their children in private schools because many can afford to in this very wealthy state.

Children deserve a world-class education to prepare them for college and good jobs, whether they live in Lynnwood, Tacoma, Spokane or on Mercer Island. We need a high-incomes tax, and we need it now!

-- Patricia Betz, Mill Creek

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

John Lok / The Seattle Times

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, center, addresses the media recently as she and other members of the Senate announce their budget proposal. With her, from left, are Sens. Rodney Tom, Maragarita Prentice and Chris Marr.

Need the enhanced revenue stream

Editor, The Times:

What an unconstructive response your board has made to Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown's proposal for a state income tax ["Gasp! Another try at an income tax," Opinion, editorial, April 3].

State legislators are struggling with a deficit of unprecedented proportions. All the progress Washington state has made in the past four years is in danger of being wiped out.

Thousands of our young people will lose the opportunity to attend college. Early-learning programs so vital to children are being cut. Public health is being endangered by cuts to vaccine programs and reproductive health. Class sizes in our public schools will increase; teachers are being laid off. Health care under the basic health plan is being severely cut. Public safety may be endangered through early prisoner release. The list is long, draconian and will negatively effect every citizen in some way.

We need an enhanced revenue stream; a progressive income tax is the fairest way to provide for the vital services we all need.

Your response to Brown's proposal was totally political and included no analysis of the budget shortfall or any suggestion of solutions to our revenue problems. You have a responsibility to educate. You failed totally in this responsibility.

-- Laurence and Rosalie Lang, Seattle

Tax will morph into something bigger

Excellent editorial this past Friday on the reality of a state income tax. That is interesting that the tax base would need to be broadened well beyond what Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown claimed to have an impact.

From a spending perspective, we ought to be highly suspicious of politicians' ability to limit a state income tax to those with high incomes. Initially, the federal income tax was just a small percent on the largest incomes; just look at what a monster federal spending has morphed into over time.

Once government has got its foot in the door, it is most often nearly impossible to get it back out.

-- Chris Waldorf, Seattle

Punitive tax is unconstitutional

It occurs to me that Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown might suffer from Northwest regional myopia. Should Brown, a Democrat, have paid closer attention to the leader of the United States, President Barack Obama, she would be aware that President Obama stated that he was not going to allow any tax on the AIG executives' bonuses, as it would be unconstitutional. His constitutional-law professor from Harvard agreed. It would have represented a punitive tax on a segment of United States taxpayers, which is not in keeping with our federal Constitution.

Punishing only the rich in Washington state would be no less an unconstitutional act than taxing the bonuses of a defined and separate group of executives.

Instead of thinking about taxing the rich only, it seems that Brown would be far more prudent if she thought about how Washington state ended up in this mess in the first place: by passing expensive entitlement legislation such as the Washington State Family Leave Entitlement Program, which also allows payments to undocumented workers, as acknowledged by this state's Employment Security Department.

A ludicrous thought.

-- Spencer Lehmann, Seattle

Current tax system is unfair

We need a state income tax. Since I moved here in 1962 from a state that had an income tax to fund schools, I've thought this state's tax system was unfair.

During 30 years teaching in the Seattle Public Schools, much of my time, beyond the school day, was spent campaigning to pass levies for basic instructional needs. Still, funding was inadequate. This should not be.

Now, faced with budget deficits, cuts to essential services to those most in need are required. Meanwhile, personal incomes for the wealthy continue to grow in Washington state. This is little comfort to those who cannot find jobs, or are working part-time at low-paying and multiple jobs while trying to find work commensurate with their education and abilities. Nor does it help those unable to work: the infirm, the aged, the children.

Low and middle classes pay proportionally more than the wealthy. This is not fair. The poorest pay about 16 percent of their incomes to state taxes, while those making more than $130,000 per year pay about 6 percent.

Washington's tax structure is the most regressive of all 50 states. The inequality is exacerbated when services many rely on, that the wealthy may not need, are cut.

-- Pat Collier, Vashon Island

Rich should pay their fair share

Tax cuts for the wealthy, we were told, would stimulate the economy and create new jobs. They have done neither, but they have taken our country from a budget surplus to the largest deficit in our nation's history, coupled with an 8.5 percent unemployment rate.

Given these facts, you would think that no one would be worried about inheritance taxes for the top 0.2 percent of Americans, but it seems that Sens. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., feel that these people deserve a break. They propose no estate taxes on any estate of less than $10 million and lowering the tax rate by 10 points ["House, Senate budget plans seen as wins for Obama," seattletimes.com, Politics & Government, April 3]. It's estimated that, if passed, this amendment would lead to $250 billion in lost revenue over the next decade.

Only nine Senate Democrats voted for this disgusting amendment. Sadly, two of the nine were our senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.

We deserve better. I urge you to call, write or e-mail our senators and tell them that it's time for those who won the birth lottery to pay their fair share.

-- David Pfeifle, Lynnwood

High cost for lower taxes

I was pleased to see that both our state's senators voted in favor of reducing the estate tax for rich heirs of the richest Americans in the land. My, our "mom in tennis shoes" senator has come a long way, hasn't she?

The tax reduction would cost more than a quarter of a trillion dollars over 10 years to ensure that the rich heirs could continue their lavish living while doing nothing to stimulate our dismal economy.

Since I'm concerned about the deficit, I think we should slap a federal tax on bread and milk to cover the cost. I'm sure that moms in tennis shoes across the state will understand the need. In these troubled times, it's the least we can do for the richest of the rich.

-- John Norris, Shoreline

Sens. Cantwell and Murray are out of touch

It's time for the state of Washington to replace our two senators.

For 30 years, the Republicans have repeatedly cut taxes and produced a massive redistribution of wealth to the rich and richer. With their vote on the inheritance tax, Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell have continued that process, giving billions to the top 0.5 percent and continuing the radical work on the "death tax" of the late Rep. Jennifer Dunn.

Of course, that shifts the tax burden onto the middle class, which has been the case for 30 years -- a process that is undemocratic. Given the desperate economic conditions today, their votes must be seen as devoid of social responsibility and immoral. Critical social services, from schools to Medicare, will be diminished or eliminated, or we will continue to borrow, or both.

Cantwell and Murray's support of this destructive process clearly demonstrates that they are out of touch with the voters in this state and in the pockets of rich contributors. Is this evidence of "pay to play?" What other possible reason could there be?

-- William Glaeser, Renton

John Lok / The Seattle Times

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, center, addresses the media recently as she and other members of the Senate announce their budget proposal. With her, from left, are Sens. Rodney Tom, Maragarita Prentice and Chris Marr.

Now may be the right time

Editor, The Times:

I believe The Seattle Times, in its editorial ["Gasp! Another try at an income tax," Opinion, April 3], is wrong on at least two fronts.

First, Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown's income-tax proposal does not call for a 1 percent flat tax. The article that discusses the proposed income tax ["Obstacles challenge proposals to tax rich," page one, April 3] details that the 1 percent tax is mandated by the state's constitution on property taxes (and income may not be, based on other state's findings) and the 1 percent income tax on single filers who make more than $500,000 a year and married filers who make more than $1,000,000 is actually contained in a bill submitted by Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle. There are no details listed for Brown's proposal that reflect these guidelines.

Second, I believe the time actually is right for the voting public to approve this type of income tax. It's been shown time and again that a sales tax is a regressive tax that favors the wealthy over the rest.

Though the wealthy may have seen their wealth and portfolios reduced by the current economic problems, they are still living a life far removed from the "average" person. I doubt that any people who would be affected by this type of income tax are currently worried about which bill they should pay, whether their children can still go to college or losing their home.

The rest of us have these worries and more.

Again, now may just be the right time for an income tax.

-- Robert Oberlander, Issaquah

Will deter entrepreneurs

In 2005, I moved to Seattle. A factor in deciding upon Seattle was the absence of an income tax.

Since moving here, I have spent a year as a full-time volunteer construction supervisor for Habitat for Humanity and I have started a business. This business directly employs six people and indirectly employs many more.

I won't leave if an income tax is enacted; however, if Washington state had an income tax four years ago, I would have chosen a different city.

I believe the greatest benefit of the state/federal system is the states have the freedom to try a variety of solutions in creating opportunities. Currently, Washington state is one of only a few states in the country that does not tax income, but rather consumption. This is a more enlightened approach.

When this recession has passed, it will be on the shoulders of small businesses and the entrepreneurs who started them. If an income tax is enacted, many entrepreneurs will choose Dallas, Phoenix or Miami to start their businesses.

Please do not take this competitive advantage away from Washington state when we need it the most.

-- Erik Cullen, Seattle

Part of the liberal agenda

So the Democratic Party in the Senate, led by Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, wants a 1 percent state income tax on $500,000. If anyone in this state thinks the tax will stay at $500,000 -- well, I have a state bridge to sell you!

Once they get their foot in the door, they will lower the tax until it's a full-blown income tax on everyone. Liberals get to their agenda by using class envy and slowly moving the agenda along until they have it all. God help us.

-- Brian Maes, Olympia

Smokers should be held accountable for choices

Yes, it most certainly is unfair ... to the large majority of Americans who do not smoke ["Tobacco tax takes giant leap Wednesday," News, March 31].

The tax should be higher. Do the math. If a $0.62 tax increase on a pack of cigarettes and other smoker-related taxes are expected to raise an additional $19 billion in four-and-a-half years (that's $4.22 billion additional per year) and the estimated health costs related to smoking are $119 billion each year (from estimates of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), then the tax increase should be $17.48 per pack to cover these estimated health costs related to smoking.

Factor in the 5 percent of smokers who quit because they can't afford the higher price and the tax would reduce to $16.61 per pack. Add this to the conservative estimate of $4.80 for the average per-pack cigarette price in the U.S., based on data collected from states and territories at the end of 2008, and the new price per pack becomes $21.41.

CNN headline: "Smokers feeling abused as federal tax hike hits."

Boo hoo. Smokers should be accountable for their bad choices.

-- Gary Glenisky, Seattle

A clear "yes"

Honestly, I don't know how President Obama could have been any clearer Feb. 24 in his address to Congress and the nation.

With apologies to the new president: Yes, we can rebuild; yes, we can recover; and, yes, the United States of America can emerge stronger than before.

-- Denny Freidenrich, Laguna Beach, Calif.

Time for fair and equal protection

How is being unfair twice fair ["Obama to pitch further taxes on wealthy" page one, Feb. 26]? Didn't Obama's mom teach him that two wrongs don't make a right?

Let me get this straight.

It's not fair when the government taxes you at a higher rate and you reduce your income through deductions available to everyone, such as charitable giving, you should still pay the higher-tax rate, but get a lesser-tax deduction?

The only reason a high-tax-rate individual will "save" more on a deduction than a low-tax-rate person is because the government is taxing the former at a higher rate in the first place.

Maybe it's time for true, fair and equal protection under the law: Tax people at all income (or better yet, consumption) levels at a single rate, regardless of income, and remove all deductions.

Billions of dollars will be saved in tax preparation, tax collection and tax avoidance.

-- David Wall, Kirkland

A propensity to squirrel it away

Could The Seattle Times conduct a telephone poll about the proposed tax cut? Here are some possible questions:

Are you employed? If not, were you laid off? When?

If employed:

How secure do you feel in your job? If less tax is withheld from your paycheck, what percent are you likely to spend? How likely are you to spend it all? How likely are you to save it all? Would you be willing to give up your tax cut? (optional) What is your income level?

Personally, I'm guessing any tax cut will be ineffective. I feel people will squirrel it away, in case our economy gets even worse.

We all would like immediate results to an economic-stimulus package, but I fear the only immediate result will be the giant debt we are assuming.

Perhaps, the current downturn is not only the stock and housing markets correcting themselves, but our way of life correcting itself. Much has been written about how American people are not savers, but willing to go into debt for immediate gratification. Perhaps, that is now changing. If so, we may not see a return to our previous level of spending.

-- Carol Nielsen, Kirkland

Time to stick our heads out the door

A message to President Obama and congressional Democrats: How many times do you have to touch the flame before you figure out that it burns? How many times do you have to listen to Republican strategies on deregulation, tax cuts for the rich and tax cuts for business before you figure out it is a failed strategy that has almost destroyed this country?

King George II let banks, bond salesmen and developers do whatever they wanted for eight years. Yet, we are now seeing the free market is not free for most of America.

As it currently stands, I wouldn't believe a Republican who said, "good morning," without sticking my head out the door to see if it was daytime.

-- Stuart Creighton, Normandy Park

Give a man a fish -- or a job

Remember the old proverb: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and his family will live a lifetime.

History proves giving a family a few hundred, or even thousand, dollars will keep the wolf from the door only a short time. Giving massive tax breaks to a select few does not turn an ailing economy around either. (Check out the International Monetary Fund Study at http://tinyurl.com/deb9gl)

But, give a man a job, a meaningful task, and he can build a bridge, fix a school, construct a wind-power farm, set up a national-intelligence power grid, make a solar-power plant or even save a nation!

And what would he do with that steady paycheck? Save a home from foreclosure? Educate his children? Buy affordable health care? Purchase a more fuel-efficient car? Plan for his own secure retirement with dignity?

Of course.

Throughout history, the strongest and most just nations have always been those that look out for the many, not the few.

-- Steven Lough, Seattle

Make money, break a habit

The idea of taxing porn is magnificent ["Bill seeks 18.5% porn tax," Local News, Feb. 11]!

The smokers and drinkers of this country are tired of raised taxes every time the state needs more money. Porn is another bad habit that can be done away with if the price is high enough.

-- Sarah Murnen, Kalkaska, Mich.

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

Not the time

Cyclists pay for public infrastructure through our share of property and sales taxes. Are you complaining about trails like the Myrtle Edwards Park or improvements to public spaces along the viaduct that benefit all members of the public ["Impose license fee on King County cyclists," editorial column, Dec. 7]?
Did you see King County's report: "Communities Count 2008"?

It stated, "On road vehicles are a leading contributor to air pollution, which also contributes to environmental and human health problems. Traffic congestion causes stress and reduces the amount of time spent with family or exercising. Incorporating alternate means to commute to work such as biking or walking benefits the health of people and the environment."

It's not time for cyclists to pay a license fee. Licensing would deter cycling. Improvement of public space should not be burdened onto people wanting to travel on public rights of way by bicycle and who already pay fair share of taxes for local infrastructure.

King County should begin taxing motorists further through establishment of a transportation benefit district already allowed by state law.

King County has no interest in providing barriers and disincentives to bicycling.

-- Beck Michaels, Seattle

An easy target

I hope that James F. Vesely's intent was only to kick the hornet's nest with his Dec. 7 editorial regarding $25 bike fees. If not, perhaps more facts and less condescension toward the cycling community could support his position.

I am a "serious" cyclist and would pay more for better bicycle facilities. I agree there is a need for frank discussions about user fees and other means to provide adequate funding. However, his point that the King County helmet law is an existing user fee doesn't even pass the laugh test.

He also did not consider the actual cost of his proposal. For the average cyclist, assuming 500 miles per year, the suggested $25 bike fee would cost $0.05 per mile. With the $0.36 per gallon state gas tax, motorists averaging 20 miles per gallon pay less than $0.02 per mile. So the average cyclist is supposed to brave the fringes of our unfriendly roads to get to a disjointed, incomplete trail network and pay twice as much per mile.

This is the time when we should be encouraging more people to ride rather than erecting barriers.
Our transportation system is already heavily subsidized; I find it ironic that the one mode that is self-powered takes the most heat for it. Cyclists just seem to be the easy target.

-- Kirk Wilcox, Lake Tapps

Doesn't match up

James F. Vesely's editorial suggesting a bike tax completely misses the mark on many levels.

First and foremost, taxes are a disincentive. Government tends to tax the things people should do less of, and create incentives for the things that build strong, healthy communities.

Cycling as transportation addresses three crises at once: congestion, pollution and obesity. Thus, the government should encourage cycling, not punish cyclists by instituting an additional tax.

The government uses our taxes to pay for lots of services. To think that you will directly use every service that your tax dollars pay for is absurd. But indirectly everyone benefits from such programs as schools that build an educated citizenry, or public transportation that reduces congestion. Bike infrastructure benefits even those who have never pedalled a stroke.

Cyclists already pay taxes in the form of income tax and sales tax. Furthermore, the percentage of transportation funding that go toward pedestrian and bike facilities, at 2 percent, does not match up to the 37 percent of road users who don't drive.

A bike tax would do more harm than good.

-- Sarah Bronstein, Seattle

Steve Ringman / The Seattle Times

A bicyclist riding along the Burke-Gilman Trail near Gas Works Park in Seattle is reflected in standing water left after Sunday night's rainstorm.

They do their part

Editor, The Times:

A simple ledger exercise is all that is needed to disprove [James F. Vesely's] bike-fee theory ["Impose license fee on King County cyclists," Times, editorial column, Dec. 7]. Fees related to the other "pleasure" activities mentioned serve to provide some means to either offset enforcement and regulation costs or to control the number of participants in the activity.

At best, activities such as hunting and fishing offer society a break-even deal. In exchange for the privilege to conduct their sport, they provide society with a means to control wildlife population. Though, by limiting seasons or harvest quantities, licenses provide a means to prevent any damage through overuse.

Bicycling, however, offers society a much more lucrative proposition without the same hazards of overuse. More bikes on the road means fewer cars, less crowded transit, less carbon emissions and a healthier population.

While there are costs associated with additional bike traffic, every bike on the road represents a net gain for the citizens of the region. So, the last thing we need is to impose a fee that would discourage the casual cyclist from getting on the road for the first time.

If anything, we should be paying people to ride more. Actually, by investing in more trails and bike facilities, we already are. So the status quo is just fine, thank you.

-- Rob Mathewson, Seattle

Count me in

Thanks for the column. As a daily cycle commuter from Mercer Island to lower Queen Anne, I would be more than happy to pay a bicycle fee.

If it means more respect from drivers and better trails, count me in.

-- Dawson Stoops, Mercer Island

Saving lives one ride at a time

The idea that bicyclists should be "contributing to the public trough" with a $25 annual fee in King County is ridiculous.

As a daily bicycle commuter, undeterred by rain, sleet, snow, darkness and, more recently, floods, this is how I already contribute to the public trough: first, through the 12 fewer tons of carbon dioxide emitted because I biked to work every day for the past 12 years; second, through the maybe 200 fewer pounds of carcinogenic hydrocarbons and particulate matter that I didn't emit, possibly reducing the cancer rates along my route; third, by helping to make my block less car-choked because my family has no need for more than one car.

The county's precious few bike paths are about the only public incentives to get people out of cars. Indeed, I had to pay a premium to live near the Burke-Gilman Trail. When my employer decides to grant me the same work force commute subsidy that it provides to those who still burn fossil fuel in a car pool or on a bus or ferry, I might favor donating $25 for a bicycle license.

-- John Incardona, Seattle

It only makes sense

I applaud your suggestion regarding bicyclists paying for the improvements to facilitate their travel. I'm not sure where your $25 fee came from, but I suspect it is not nearly high enough to pay for the life-cycle costs of the facilities constructed for the bikers.

In Bellevue, probably not more than 1 to 2 percent of the vehicle trips are via bicycle. And, for example, current Bellevue city staff proposals call for $15.5 million to be spent (acquisition costs only) on one north/south or one east/west bike corridor. Clearly, such improvements are very expensive.

Undoubtedly, the Bellevue City Council will levy these costs on all Bellevue taxpayers.

A better approach to determining the fees to be imposed on bikers would be to determine the levelized cost (cost per rider) to provide improvements; such levelized costs would be based on the life-cycle costs for the improvements, and normalized to expected (say, annual) usage on the facilities. Thus, riders would pay for the "privilege" of using bicycles as their preferred mode of transportation.

But, as you noted, the probability of any elected government officials proposing such an approach is zero, as they are much more comfortable with levying general taxes to subsidize special-interest groups; this is totally consistent with their normal modus operandi.

-- David Plummer, Bellevue

Just better informed

I ride my bike to work almost daily, and yet, contrary to your view, I am still a "true member of the world of transportation." I am there not due to your good graces, but as a legal user of our public roads and paths. I pay all the same taxes that you do. The only "free ride" I'm getting is possibly in the form of lower fuel costs and less time and money spent at the gym.

Perhaps the elected officials whose "guts" you question are simply better informed as to what a public good is, and how it's paid for.

-- Kevin Henderson, Seattle

Make them pay

We tax everything. We have real expenses related to sharing the road with cyclists, so why should they be exempt?

I spoke with a cyclist and mentioned this a few weeks back and he was all for it.

I share Lake Washington Boulevard with cyclists daily, most of whom are courteous. We all share the road, although one of my greatest fears is bumping one while I am in a 4,000-pound truck and they are hurt or killed.

Some of the cyclists will not use the two or three feet on the side of the road or they insist on riding side by side at 18 to 22 mph on a road with a 30 mph speed limit. This leads to daily backups and lots of frustration.

Cyclists will pass a person walking 4 mph on Seward Park's loop road at 22 mph and come very close.

Some of them want to have their cake and eat it too.

Let's license them, make them pay some of their own way and make clear the rules of the road for all.

Thanks for the brave column.

--Brad Easton, Seattle

Keep the Sound green

There are two simple facts to consider: The idea is to get people out of cars and using alternate forms of transport; enacting a tax on bicycles works contrary to that goal.

Perhaps more importantly, since money seems to be at the root of this, is that somewhere between 95 and 99.9 percent of all bicyclists also own a car or otherwise pay taxes in their myriad forms that support our roads.

Those who don't already support roads or pay taxes are so poor or so young that they have no business doing so. Perhaps kids could start riding a Wii bike -- Lord knows they're getting too much of the outdoors as it is.

Bicycles meet the transportation needs of many with minimal impact, while also providing some measure of personal freedom, personal fitness and an effort for cleaner air and no oily runoff from streets and lots.

-- Thomas Hammond, Seattle

We need to spend less, not more

I am a cyclist and I pay taxes for the roads on which I ride; I am not getting a "free ride." This year, I paid over $200 in property taxes and a $25 employee tax for the Bridging the Gap levy, which is what is funding those improvements for safer cycling in Seattle.

None of it comes from vehicle license fees.

The road and trail improvements for cyclists are not a "contribution to the cycling community." They are the most cost-effective transportation-improvement opportunity available to the whole community. Cyclists pay their share.

Cyclists are reducing road congestion by sharing the road using less roadway width, and at lower cost in roadway wear and tear. The bike lanes are shared with bus stops, all-vehicle turn lanes, breakdown lanes and often with general-traffic lanes.

It is not bicycles that caused the rutted pavement that the Bridging the Gap levy is repaving. The Spokane Street Viaduct and Lander Street overpass are not being rebuilt by this levy for bicycle traffic.

Bicycling improvements are under 10 percent of the BTG levy expenses. So, although I commute by bicycle, 90 percent of my levy-tax contribution is paying for motor vehicle and pedestrian improvements. I also pay sales and property tax to the general fund, which pays for road building and maintenance, but almost none of that goes to cycling-specific improvements.

When I use a bike to get to work or shop, in addition to reducing air pollution and congestion, I am subsidizing pedestrian, motor vehicle and rail transportation.

I would not mind paying a toll for a bike lane on the 520 bridge, as long as it is proportional, and applied to pedestrians as well. But why call for a license fee on bikes (and pedestrians) at a time when encouraging cycling and walking for transportation has so many benefits, including far lower cost to taxpayers than other choices?

-- Don Brubeck, Seattle

Would never fly

James F. Vesely's column regarding bicyclists paying their fair share by paying a $25 annual fee has one flaw: Bicyclists do pay taxes.

I commute every day to work on a bike but I, like most other bikers, also own a car. Every time I ride my bike I am keeping 3,000 pounds of erosional force off the roads. If I had a nickel for every road-raging driver who yelled at me for not paying taxes, I could afford the $25.

The purpose of the new bike and pedestrian paths are to provide a safer means to get around town and encourage more people to get out of their cars. Double-taxing bicyclists won't achieve this.

And let's assume there were such a tax. Do we tax those "first Christmas bikes?" Are we going to tax pedestrians for the new sidewalks being added in north Seattle? There is one thing both Vesely and I can agree on: Any politician willing to propose this will soon be looking for a new job.

-- Jon Connolly, Seattle

Wake up

James F. Vesely's comments are simplistic and shortsighted. I would argue that this is the worst time to propose such a tax.

Climate change is serious and we need to respond immediately. Carbon-free transportation options need to be as easy as possible. How much will it cost to respond to rising sea levels and shifting climates?

Cycle commuting reduces gridlock. How much does traffic congestion cost the region?

Our society is getting fatter. Obesity drains the economy by lowering worker productivity. Cyclists are also drivers of automobiles. We're already paying taxes.

Wake up and smell the greenhouse gases, Vesely.

-- Scott Nicolai, Ellensburg

Already paying too much

It reflects poorly upon The Seattle Times that its editorial page editor is entirely ignorant of Seattle's transportation tax policy.

If James F. Vesely had done a little homework he might have discovered that Seattle's bicyclists are anything but "free riders." A large majority of our city's roadways are paid for via sales taxes and property taxes, which every resident pays.

Furthermore, unlike cars, the physical impact upon these roadways made by bicycles is practically negligible, meaning that Seattle bicyclists actually subsidize their city roads at a greater rate than Vesely does.

-- Doug Nellis, Seattle

If you cut anything, cut this

The story "Stimulus cost likely to soar" [Politics, Nov. 24] said of the $700 billion package that this is "more than the nation has spent over the past six years in Iraq." That is true only in the most limited accounting of the costs of the war.

The American Friends Service Committee estimates a more accurate cost of the war at $720 million per day. Over six years, that comes to $1.58 trillion -- more than double the cost of the proposed stimulus package.

Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, in his recent book, says the war will cost us $3 trillion, if we include the costs of caring for our physically and psychologically wounded vets, replacing used equipment, etc.

But the real program to compare a $700 billion stimulus package against must be the cost of our American empire. The U.S. military-industrial-intelligence complex of 740 bases worldwide is costing us at least $700 billion every year.

We are facing the choice every empire eventually faces: Is the price of empire worth it? The Cold War is over. We spend as much as all the other countries in the world put together on our military. Is this sensible, especially now?

--Bert Sacks, Seattle

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

Hardly seems fair

As someone that has a degree in photography and is a lover of all of the arts, I want to congratulate the arts community for the $7.7 million windfall they recently received ["A windfall for the arts," News, Nov. 19].

With the "1 percent for the arts" money that my tax dollars already support, I don't think you need any more money from me. After all, I wonder how many artists were among the 75 percent of Seattle voters who a couple of years ago defeated an initiative to forbid public money for stadiums, which was one of the first steps to running the Sonics, a 40-year institution, out of town.

The city and the Sonics were asking for only an extension of a tax that was already being collected and then only to those who ate in restaurants, that amounted to a paltry 50 cents on a $100 tab. The "1 percent for the arts" collects from everybody, forever. Hardly seems fair, doesn't it?

-- Michael Manderville, Kent

Feeding the cows

I just opened a nice letter from the King County Assessor's office saying how much my home value had increased. What a nice thing to hear especially at a time when other people keep telling me how rapidly my retirement funds are decreasing.

I asked a nice lady at their office how this could possibly be and she said the new value was reckoned on prices and things the way they were three or four years ago and not the horrible values they are today. I don't know what in the world she could possibly be thinking.

I suspect the assessor's office has bought into this new "bailout" business. And maybe King County and some really nice people on Wall Street need our money worse than we do.

Well, I have to feed the cows now, but I've picked up a handy little money-saving "tool" from the assessor's office: I am only feeding them enough for their herd size as it was three or four years ago -- they are complaining loudly despite solid reasoning and logic.

Well, they're only just dumb cows.

-- Dennis Swanson, Auburn