Washington is a place of equality

Editor, The Times:

I was elated to read your editorial ["Basic fairness, equality for Washington families," Opinion, Sept. 2] encouraging voters to approve Referendum 71, upholding the domestic-partnership law, when it comes to the ballot this fall.

The Washington I know is a place where people of all different races, backgrounds, creeds and, yes, sexual orientations can live together in respect, tolerance and equality. It is on those values I hope voters will base their decision on Ref. 71.

This November, voters will face one question: Should this law be approved? I hope voters will also ask themselves another question: Should someone be allowed to commit themselves to someone they love? Truly, that's all this issue asks, and there's only one, simple answer.

Yes, I am a gay man. But I reject the notion that I am intrinsically inferior to others because of this. I hope voters will, too, by turning out to approve Referendum 71.

-- Tucker Cholvin, Snohomish

Keep the conversation in the realm of executive responsibilities

King County executive candidates Dow Constantine and Susan Hutchison have weighed in on marriage benefits for same-sex partners. Now what?

This illustrates how far off base we have drifted in how we choose our elected officials and why they seem so incompetent when in office. Voters and the press continue to ask questions and probe positions that, while interesting, are irrelevant to officials' jobs.

The current example of Referendum 71 and King County executive shows how we drift in how we choose our executive. What does Ref. 71 have to do with overseeing Metro transit and managing the aspects of the county that person is responsible for? Nothing.

Why don't we get back to basics, and see how they are qualified for the job, not how they feel about social and political issues that are out of the scope of their jobs? While it may satisfy our curiosity to know how they feel about same-sex marriage, health-care reform or other popular debates, it obfuscates how competent they will be at the everyday tasks of their jobs.

That suitability will affect us directly. Valuing how they feel about Ref. 71 and other issues is exactly why Mayor Greg Nickels is being booted: He expended more effort toward posturing on global climate change and provided incompetent direct response to the snowfall in Seattle when that was the climate change he should have focused on.

King County executive hopefuls should be focusing on their executive skills, not political skills. Otherwise it's just another snow job.

-- Bob Johnson, Mercer Island

For referendum signers, no special protection

The attempts to block the release of petition-signer information by the backers of Referendum 71 ["Foes sue to block Referendum 71; backers can't hide donors' names," NWFriday, Aug. 28] reminds me of a sketch from 1977's crude "The Kentucky Fried Movie."

The sketch has a daredevil wearing a fire suit, helmet and gloves walk up to a group of black men, yell the "n-word" at the top of his lungs and then run for his life.

The difference is that Ref. 71's heroes want to replace the protective suit with blindfolds for the rest of us. The notion that the despicable and malicious nature of their speech entitles the signers' to special protections from public censure is an absurd and disturbing perversion of the First Amendment.

-- Jonathan Kallay, Seattle

Ref. 71 could be an infectious change

I predict Referendum 71 is going to become a big deal and a defining moment in the history of gay rights.

People have been choked by Proposition 8 in California passing. People have learned. This won't happen again. It will be the beginning of a "Yes, we can" movement that is much bigger than the gay movement, a movement of "Yes, we can take care of our society and our people, no matter who they are."

It will go well beyond Washington state.

-- Emma Le Du, Seattle

For homophobes, no marriage

Editor, The Times:

I would like to take a moment to reassure opponents of Referendum 71, those homophobes who want to prevent domestic-partnership rights from expanding.

I don't hate homophobes. I don't fear homophobes. I don't have religious objections to homophobes.

I just don't think they should be allowed to marry.

-- Howard Hance, Snohomish

Confusion, like with Prop. 8, needs to be avoided

The Seattle Times reported that those seeking to overturn extended domestic-partner rights with Referendum 71 have collected enough signatures to put it on the ballot in November, and The Times published an article immediately below that report with the headline, "Foe of R-71 mulls write-in bid for mayor" [page one, Sept. 1].

This story is about state Sen. Ed Murray, who is a staunch supporter of passing R-71, not a "foe." This incorrect language is sure to confuse voters wondering whether to vote yes or no on R-71. [Editor's note: Murray opposed domestic-partnership rights expansion going to a vote in R-71. Once R-71 gathered enough signatures, however, Murray is a supporter of voting yes on R-71 to extend to domestic partners the same rights as married couples.]

A referendum that has already been passed by the state Legislature is a law; if it goes to the ballot, a yes vote upholds it and a no vote overturns it. While you explain this later in the story, this is not enough for many people who likely read your incorrect headline and moved on.

I am particularly concerned about this misleading headline because of the voter confusion about Proposition 8 in California last November. Polls have shown that many voters on both sides were confused about what their "yes" and "no" votes meant, with many supporters of gay marriage accidentally voting in favor of Proposition 8 and vice versa.

-- Hannah Tracy, Seattle

My marriage doesn't need saving from same-sex 'threat'

For the life of me, I cannot conceive of how marriage between two people of the same gender could be of any threat to my 50-year marriage; it doesn't need any "defense of marriage" group's help.

-- Martin Paup, Seattle

Washington led for women's rights, now for gay rights

I support Referendum 71. It is fair and correct to affirm the rights of Washington's gay and lesbian families. The United States Constitution was written for the people, not just married people, not just single people. For everybody.

Domestic partnerships are not a replacement for full marriage equality. All families deserve true equality under the law. The purpose of our Constitution is to limit the power of government and protect the rights of the people.

Who opposes R-71? People who think our constitutional liberties do not apply to everyone but rather to specific groups they happen to belong to. We have a word for that: intolerance.

This is a time for all who believe in equality of rights to stand up and be counted. Washington state is the nation's leader in women's rights. Let's take the lead on this issue, and make sure our gay and lesbian families enjoy the same protection the rest of us take for granted.

-- Scott Leopold, Everett

PCO candidates vital to public involvement

I question Kate Riley's column ["End free ballot ride for parties," Opinion, Aug. 28] in which she questions public balloting for precinct committee officers (PCOs).

What does she propose instead? Should the parties elect them at caucuses? Who attends caucuses? One percent of the people, maybe?

Having PCO candidates on the primary-election ballot gives the general public their one opportunity to choose party officials. Is there not a public interest here?

Take it away, and the parties would be even less accountable than they already are.

-- John Carlin, Edmonds

Parties cut budgets while taking tax dollars for operations

Kate Riley's column exposes the hypocrisy of Washington's Republican and Democratic parties, which demand an election system that favors the perpetuation of party apparatus -- as long as the taxpayers fund it.

It is unbelievable that we effectively give the King County major parties $2.4 million every two years to fund their private precinct committee officer elections, while police, prosecutors, courts and other essential county-government services face repeated cuts.

As a commissioner for a small park district on Vashon Island, we are forced to pay King County a substantial part of our budget every two years to fund unopposed commissioner elections. These costs are determined based on the number of jurisdictions on the ballot and the cost of the election itself. It is unacceptable that we ultimately have less money to support kids playing in parks because the major political parties get their elections for free, and the costs are shifted to everyone else.

But this is not the only area where our major parties have perpetuated their own existence through public funding of party activities.

Our Legislature employs partisan staff that represent the interests of the Democrats or the Republicans, rather than the interests of the public.

At taxpayer expense, these partisan staff are given generous salaries, provided with office space and more. At the same time the Legislature in Olympia is cutting basic public education, it is maintaining its own party structure on the public dollar. This is the same Olympia, by the way, that provides free access to the ballot for its own parties while those same parties sue us in federal court for not giving them enough.

It is increasingly clear that George Washington's warnings against party politics were right. Reflecting our current broken political system, Washington warned that political parties "distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration agitate the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; [and] kindle the animosity of one against another." Sound familiar?

Following George Washington's advice, it is time for our Washington to remove all party apparatus from the state and county dole. It is clear the political parties are not working for us.

-- David Hackett, Vashon Island

Don't just decriminalize -- legalize marijuana

I agree with state Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles and former state Rep. Toby Nixon ["State should decriminalize marijuana," Opinion, guest column, Aug. 21] that it's time for Washington state to decriminalize marijuana.

However, I disagree with their method. We do not need any further distractions for our police force in trying to write civil infractions against marijuana users. Why not legalize marijuana outright?

We should treat it the same way we treat alcohol and marijuana's distant relative, the cigarette. Make it legal and tax it. This way, users don't have to worry about prosecution or infractions, and the state of Washington can increase its revenue intake.

Hempfest drew tens of thousands of people to its annual show, so we can assume the demand is there.

The idea that marijuana use leads to users upgrading to more potent substances like cocaine and LSD are unfounded. It is time to stop the insanity. Senate Bill 5615 is a good start, but let us take it a step further.

Legalize marijuana and let the state reap its profits.

-- Thaddeus Powell, Renton

Bigger problems than marijuana use confront state

With state budgets dwindling, it is time to rethink our criminal-justice system regarding marijuana. Clearly, no matter what criminal campaign is waged, it is not wiping out the recreational use of marijuana.

With state prisons busting at the seams all over the country, I would call this the low-hanging fruit and would be an easy way for us to alleviate at least some of the overcrowding that exists.

We have bigger problems in the realm of law enforcement. I am hopeful to see regulation of this drug in the future as a potential source of taxes to help fund some of the programs that are getting cut because of budget shortfalls.

The point is, we have realistic options here, and we cannot ignore this topic any longer.

-- Corrie Fowble, Seattle

Why stop with legalizing marijuana?

In their guest column state Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles and former state Rep. Toby Nixon present their argument for support for Senate Bill 5615 to decriminalize marijuana use, citing cost savings to the criminal-justice system and new revenues for Washington state.

The article allows us to infer that they tacitly concur with the rest of us about the harmful effects of this illicit drug, enough to search for alternatives to prevent its use.

While the column doesn't expressly accept or deny that clinical studies warn of the drug's long list of long-term harmful effects, with their proposed reclassifying of the adult possession of marijuana, Kohl-Welles and Nixon contend the bill will slow down use.
Good to look for new preventive remedies; not good to decriminalize.

Mexico, for example, has gone even further, decriminalizing five grams of marijuana, 50 mg of heroin, 0.5 ram of cocaine and 40 mg of meth -- also to reduce court costs in prosecuting users. Why aren't Kohl-Welles and Nixon expanding Senate Bill 5615 to also decriminalize heroin, cocaine and meth for responsible personal use? The goals are the same.

Here are some related public policies to ponder:

• Let's also dumb down the public education curriculum and tests so fewer students fail.

• Let's lower the standards and qualifications for individuals to run for public offices.

• Let's reduce the number of hours and stipulations required for pilots, so they can fly longer and older.

• Let's decriminalize prostitution, like Nevada, so taxes will add to state revenues and free the courts.

-- Dee Tezelli and Steve Danishek, Seattle

Marijuana has plenty of benefits

Reader Jerry Bredouw must be jesting when he writes that he's waiting for "someone to address the glaring fact that inhaling pot will probably cause lung cancer" ["Won't smoking pot give you cancer, too?" Northwest Voices, letter to the editor, Aug. 23]. If indeed the invitation stands that anyone may help Bredouw comprehend why this " fact" hasn't been addressed, I will gladly point out the following:

First, no lung-cancer deaths have ever been linked to marijuana. None.

Second, it has been reported that pot kills cancer cells. Third, people who say "seems odd" aren't really interested in the well being of their accused. It's hoping pot smokers get cancer like cigarette smokers do.

Fourth, sure, smoke is bad for you. That's why some marijuana users prefer to vaporize their product, therefore ingesting no smoke whatsoever. Others cook their stash into food and eat it. Bredouw sounds like a bitter nicotine addict. He's not a doctor, that's for sure.

And finally, there's not enough serious medical research on pot to verify the carcinogen hypothesis. Republicans tend to crash the funding. Seems odd indeed.

-- Keith Curtis, Ballard

Want safer roads? An in-car breathalyzer is better than cellphone ban

The Times needs to tone down the cellphone-ban rhetoric ["Washington's timid cellphone ban," Opinion, column, July 2]. This problem is not the scourge you make it out to be.

If The Times was so concerned with safer roads, it would argue for interlock breathalyzer devices mandatory to license vehicles. With no exceptions, drinking and driving would cease overnight. Or better yet, let's get rid of vehicles, and ride the light rail. That way we won't have to subsidize it for decades.

This cellphone bill is ironic in a state that exports death machines daily. Maybe we should make sure the pilots who fly the drones who bomb the women and children are using their hands-free device, too.

-- Jon Weerts, Kent

Bad drivers, not cellphones, are the problem

Editorial writer Joni Balter advocates a complete statewide ban on cellphone usage while on public highways. She supports legislation that would prohibit all of the rural citizens working east of the Cascades use of a cellphone unless they have a hands-free device in the drivers ear.

I know personally dozens of people that can drive defensively using legal communication devices -- not hands free --in their vehicles and are much safer drivers per mile than your average aggressive commuter late for work without a cellphone. These drivers have driven for years and millions of miles in trucks moving at highway speeds using citizens band radios. Do you advocate a ban on those, too?

Why not go a step further and take the cupholders out of the cars and make it illegal to install a CD player? Why not make it illegal for a driver under 21 to have passengers? Most accidents are caused by young people driving too fast. That is why insurance rates for male drivers younger than 25 are higher than any other age group.

Your ideas address the symptom but not the cause. It is the poor driving habits of careless drivers that need to be punished harshly. Careless driving is a serious offense and should be enforced to the fullest extent if an accident occurs. We have enough laws. The cellphone itself is not the problem.

-- Tim Anderegg, Manchester

Why is the cellphone ban so hard for lawmakers?

I moved here not too long ago from Colorado, where they can pull you over for talking or using a cellphone. I see a lot of letters to the editor about not being able to enforce the cellphone ban here.

Perhaps it would help if the state would remove the signs to call 1-800-HERO if drivers see someone using the commuter lane while riding solo.

Lets face it: Lawmakers need to get a wake-up call. If they can't resolve a small issue like this one, then it's no wonder our state government is so messed up.

-- Simon Gunnoe, Federal Way

Talking on phone while driving should be primary offense

Joni Balter is right on target in her column regarding the "timid" cellphone ban ["Washington's timid cellphone ban," Opinion, July 2].

We must get this law changed to a primary offense and as quickly as possible. I myself have been hit in traffic by a person who was on a cellphone; fortunately, there was only damage to the car, but things could have been worse.

I have long thought we needed stricter laws for both cellphones and texting -- I believe texting should be strictly prohibited for drivers in all cases.

Cellphones are simply a good example of useful technology getting carried to extremes. I don't know why everyone feels they have to keep in touch with one another constantly. With the overbusy lives we all have today, I would think we would all relish getting in the car to avoid this contact for a little while.

-- Kathleen Collins, Bellevue

Ban's sponsor should introduce stricter law

Joni Balter's column was excellent. I hope that Sen. Tracey Eide pushes for a stricter law next session. The current law is a joke.

I can't tell you how many times I have almost been killed by people driving, not paying attention and absorbed in a conversation on their cellphone.

-- Mary Emmick, Issaquah

Fund diversion affects all outdoor enthusiasts

The recent article on the state Legislature's diversion of funds from the Nonhighway and Off-Road Vehicle Activities (NOVA) account is right in calling attention to the desperate plight of trails managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Washington Department of Natural Resources ["Many of trail systems in Wash. may be lost," seattletimes.com, Local News, May 23]. But it was wrong in characterizing the NOVA program as being exclusively funded by off-road vehicle (ORV) users.

The NOVA program is a refund of taxes paid on gas used on roads the state does not maintain, such as logging roads that lead to hiking trailheads or the paved roads in national parks. Grants from the NOVA program are allocated according to the rate of contribution of the different user groups, including ORV riders, equestrians, hikers and families out for a picnic.

The NOVA program benefits hundreds of thousands of outdoor enthusiasts of all kinds, from all across the state. By implying that the program is the domain of a limited group, we miss the opportunity to do what is needed most to fix this problem -- to come together as a diverse community of recreation users and insist that the Legislature restore the NOVA program to its full account.

-- Elizabeth Lunney, executive director, Washington Trails Association, Seattle

Support bill and local artists

Concerning The Seattle Times' May 22 editorial ["Bill to limit public art should be vetoed," Opinion, May 2] regarding proposed legislation to make artists residing outside of Washington ineligible to compete for public-arts funding for two years: Stating it is shortsighted is the opposite of what really will occur.

Enacting this legislation is important economically and is also artistically sound. The economics relative to utilizing Washington artists relate to the money artists spend locally and the taxes that they, as businesses, are required by license to pay. This is money that stays in the state.

There are two false premises in the editorial. One is that other states will follow suit and Washington artists will end up on the losing end. This has not proven to be the case, as most arts commissions select works based on merit. To not accept this premise is demeaning to our own arts commission.

Secondly, you state that the Washington State Arts Commission is not offering huge commissions to out-of-state artists. Thirteen out of 35 is 37 percent --that's a Hall-of-Fame number for a baseball player. The numbers that matter are the percentages of money allocated for those contracts. Research I published in the 1980s on public spending in the arts, specifically the Seattle Arts Commission, showed project money was 41 percent for Northwest artists versus 59 percent for out-of-state artists. I have seen no evidence to show any changes in this attitude.

The statement that this proposal would close the doors for great works of art is an insult to the art community of this state. One should only look at the art of Washington artists acquired by the state.

-- Phillip Levine, Seattle

Budget cuts kill newest jobs

As a music teacher with my job on the line ["Education cuts mean layoffs of newest teachers," NWWednesday, April 19], I think many people -- especially younger teachers -- feel the same way I do.

Low on the Totem Pole
There's no way to tell for certain
If I'm coming back next year.
They might just close the curtain
On my entire career.

Sure, I hardly get paid a dime,
That's less than most of my peers.
But I guess my only crime
Has been working only three years.

I'm low on the totem pole
But not the lowest -- that's really swell.
I think of all those lowly souls
Who don't stand a blessed chance in ... teaching.

There's no way to tell for certain
If I'm coming back next year.
But if I must change my profession,
I'm going to be a political engineer.

-- Justin Galicic, Federal Way

Cuts to education, health care lack conscience

We are ashamed to be citizens of the state of Washington right now.

The budget just passed is a disgrace ["Legislature gives final approval to budget," NWSunday, April 26]. It is shortsighted. And while its immediate effects will be borne most heavily by those who can least afford it, very soon we will all feel that pain.

Cutting education funding will exact a toll on our economy and the state will become less competitive. Slashing 40,000 people from the rolls of the Basic Health Plan will cost us all as more people are unable to afford needed and preventive care and will end up in our already dismally overcrowded emergency rooms.

It is truly sad that we don't have leadership at the state level that matches the enormity of our problems. It is beyond us why our governor and Legislature did not seize this moment to finally address the real and growing inequities in our state tax system, which is one of the most regressive in the country.

We will all pay for this budget without a conscience.

-- Kate Marrone and Bruce Patt, Seattle

Math doesn't add up

Looking at the huge cuts in our state budget, I thought back to when the governor first took office with a budget just under $24 billion. We had a small shortfall, but most programs were fully funded.

Now the governor is starting her second term with a budget pared down from $39 billion (a 58.3 percent increase from her first term) to just $35 billion (an increase of 43.8 percent) and every program is getting cut.

Can anyone explain to the uninformed taxpayers how we can't fund education and health care with the huge increases in spending? Where are the increases in expenses? No amount of fancy math tricks can support budget increases like these.

-- Gene Hardin, Graham

Bad behavior in the Capitol

As a student at Green River Community College, I think Gov. Chris Gregoire and the entire Washington state Legislature are a disgrace.

Olympia has made so many poor decisions in the past four years when it comes to cutting funds for education (raising tuition prices and cutbacks on staff) and also cutting back social services, like the Department of Social and Health Services. I'm a disabled student and am very disgruntled by the bad attitude our voters in this state and our government have.

Gov. Gregoire and everyone else in the state Legislature, you should be ashamed of your bad behavior to the citizens of this state. I think it's time for all of you to resign now!

-- Patrick Hirang, Kent

Dean Rutz / The Seattle Times

The Safeco Field faithful stand and cheer Brandon Morrow as he closes out the ninth inning against Tampa Bay last week.

Editor, The Times:

Hooray for Christine Johnson-Duell! She has come up with a reasonable means to help fund education through a 1 percent tax on sports ["Time to put education ahead of sports," Opinion, guest commentary, April 27].

Most of our legislators seem to think that sports are more important than education. In this time of economic distress, it seems that the 1 percent tax is a great idea. Johnson-Duell is so right on about the alarming habit of the Legislature ignoring voter mandates and doing what they want despite what the majority votes.

I fail to understand the Legislature's thinking in passing the megabillion-dollar tunnel and cutting the education budget to the barest of bones. We, the voters, have said no to a tunnel and again we will have to sit back and take it while our schools continue to suffer.

I say let's tax those sports teams that have been receiving welfare for the rich for many years.

-- Nancy Dickerson, Seattle

Funding not tied to better education

I'll put aside the fact that Christine Johnson-Duell's premise is flawed -- no state money has gone to Safeco Field that might have been used elsewhere, such as education.

She acknowledged in her guest commentary that the stadium is revenue-positive for local and state government, not to mention local businesses. The real issue is that there is no correlation between dollars spent and the success of the educational process. Check the funding levels in Washington, D.C., against results.

Certainly, teachers want to make more money and have smaller class sizes. Why not? But at the end of the day, these likely won't improve education in some schools.

Real education improvement will only occur when the issues raised in Walter Backstrom's excellent piece in the April 27 Tacoma News Tribune (also in the April 25 Federal Way Mirror), "Faith can elevate education levels for blacks," are honestly dealt with.

The issues Backstrom confronts in his article, including parents who don't care, teachers who can't teach, poverty, drugs, no fathers and no positive role models, and others, are unlikely to be resolved through increased education funding.

I believe his message applies wherever these issues arise. A different type of community problem-solving will likely be necessary and I suspect money is the least critical resource.

-- Darrell Fisk, Federal Way

Ridiculous, clouded in secrecy

Sen. Ed Murray's Substitute Senate Bill 6116 was a ridiculous bill clouded in secrecy from the beginning ["KeyArena bill 'really dead,'." NW Thursday, April 23].

Moreover, it was a weak and foolhardy attempt to extend a tax for purposes not explicitly stated in the bill. This isn't a Cougs vs. Dawgs issue, as he would have people believe; this is about good government in very trying times.

What I find most deplorable about Murray's new, personal-vendetta amendment is the idea that it is OK for 6116 to try to literally slip one past taxpayers without a vote, but the idea that Washington State University students who voted to have fees applied for a specific purpose may be overruled by a petulant politician with a grudge.

While I applaud Murray's work on many of the real issues facing our citizens, the notion that he has time to come up with something this ridiculous not once, but twice, is great disservice to the people he represents.

-- Max McCain, Seattle

Leadership needed for legislation

The Seattle Times did a good job of summing up our state's progress on curbing climate change and transitioning to a clean energy economy ["Climate-change progress," Opinion, editorial, April 20].

Watching HB 1819/SB 5735's progress, I have been excited at the prospect of Washington state finally taking action on climate change after years of talk, and then dismayed at lack of leadership to take real action to reach the level we need.

Although cap-and-trade is not in the current bill, this current bill is still legislation worthy of our support, requiring that Washington's only coal-fired power plant reduce its emissions by 2025. Transitioning to clean power is not easy, but it is certainly possible with such a lengthy time period. We should urge this transition to start as soon as possible -- for the sake of emissions reductions and because it will be easier than attempting to switch all at once, five or 10 or 15 years down the line.

The other crucial part of the current legislation will help us reduce emissions from traffic by increasing options for transportation. The result should get us where we need to go faster, and with reduced greenhouse-gas emissions. Since 55 percent of our emissions in Washington come from our cars, this is crucial.

The legislation at hand moves us forward in mitigating climate change. I hope state Sen. Phil Rockefeller will demonstrate leadership and help pass this bill. We should fight for every step forward that we can -- even the small steps count!

-- Maradel Gale, Bainbridge Island

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

Look for them at a school near you

The changes outlined in "State Senate budget plan would cut $3.8B -- education takes a hit" [seattletimes.com, Local News, March 31] alarmingly trickled down to our Snoqualmie Valley School District last night. Among a variety of cuts is the proposal to eliminate interscholastic athletics for all middle schools in our district.

Sports are our community's most valuable anti-drug and -alcohol program. Coaches work as bookends with parents to help watch over our kids and keep them busy so they avoid looking for trouble.

Besides the ramifications of how this cut will trickle up and affect high-school athletics, what about these kids who want to be part of a school's competitive team but are unable to because they no longer exist? Do we even need school mascots anymore?

It rains here a lot. Kids get bored. Now more than ever, sports are a bright light and a distraction from today's worldly issues. Football makes math more tolerable, basketball gets us through winter and track makes our kids sleep well at night.

Parents, let your Legislature and districts know your support for athletics so that fundraising and creative cuts elsewhere will be considered to save our sports. Similar cuts are probably coming to a school near you.

-- Stephanie Hager, Snoqualmie

Government not exempt from frugality

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

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

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

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

-- David Melby, Bellevue

Income tax worth it for literate, healthy community

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

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

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

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

-- Helen Donnelly Goehring, Seattle

Cut elected officials' pay

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

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

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

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

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

-- Terry Filer, Everett

Rethink higher-education priorities

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

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

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

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

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

-- Charlie Peters, Seattle

City: Spending cuts neglect what's important to citizens

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

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

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

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

-- George and Patricia Robertson, Seattle

State: Avoid tuition increase -- tap UW endowment fund

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Bob Conrad, Seattle

Federal: Overspending in an economic depression

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

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

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

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

-- Andrew Kato, Renton

A disingenuous effort at leadership

I read the bullet-ridden special to The Times from Gov. Christine Gregoire about climate change ["Positioning Washington for climate leadership," Opinion, April 7]. I was surprised that she didn't take credit for the large reduction in greenhouse gases that has taken place because of our current recession. She also didn't take credit for the reduction in traffic over the past six months, although some of it is due to the Sonics leaving town.

I felt compelled to respond to her disingenuous letter on climate leadership for three reasons. First, she says, "We're seeing the devastating results here -- two 100-year floods in the past two years." She can't prove this. I was in Phoenix in 1980 when they had the first of their two 100-year floods. They didn't blame it on climate change, but they did come up with some better planning for the future.

Second: "Require coal-fired power plants operating in the state to eliminate emissions of greenhouse gases or be fully carbon neutral by no later than 2025." I wasn't the only one who also read The Times' article in the same paper, "State's secret deal sparks outcry" [NW Tuesday, April 7]. I scoured this article to see if the governor's negotiating minions mentioned anything to lower the greenhouse-gas emissions. No mention of carbon-footprint lowering; the negotiations centered on mercury reduction and reducing nitrogen-oxide by using cleaner-burning coal from the Rocky Mountains

I did find out that we only have one coal-fired plant in Washington, a fact that was also not noted in "Move Washington beyond coal" [Opinion, April 10]. This plant is responsible for 17 percent of our state's energy mix, which we obviously can't afford to take off the grid.

Third: "President Obama is already working with Congress to develop a national cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases -- a most effective and efficient way to reduce harmful emissions." Notice that she doesn't say "the most effective" because they haven't any proof that this method does what she and President Obama imply. We want to believe that the president and the governor would do what's right for us Americans.

On April 11 in your paper, columnist Froma Harrop wrote, "Cap-and-trade and its variations do amount to a tax" ["Get off the energy roller-coaster," Opinion]. It was after reading this that I realized the function of the governor's patter. She is trying to sell us something -- the cap-and-trade.

The politicians have created their own Pirates of Penzance. The money raised by the cap-and-trade will be much more than the money raised selling dispensations from the Pope. However, the brokers of these deals stand to make enough money to make the earnings of Bernie Madoff look like small change.

-- James Coghlan, Seattle

Public safety should be highest priority

What is it that our governor and legislators don't understand? The first responsibility of any government is public safety. Yet every time there is a budget shortfall, the first to go on the chopping block are the police and firefighters ["Tough times take bite out of criminal justice," page one, April 9].

Now they want to close a prison and youth facilities, and reduce sentences and supervision of paroles. What's next?

This is irresponsible government and the people should demand that our elected officials do the job they're paid to do.

I recently read an article in The Times that stated our state spends millions of dollars each year for medical care for illegal aliens ["Immigrants' economic drain disputed," NW Thursday, April 9]. Want to save money? Start here and stay away from public safety.

-- Welland B. Scott, Kirkland

Cutting wage increases: a shallow reactionary plan

The Times editorial titled "King County's riches" [Opinion, April 7] backs a proposed county ordinance from King County Councilwoman Kathy Lambert to eliminate negotiated cost-of-living (COLA) increases during a revenue shortfall. This proposal ignores past employee sacrifices and negotiated trade-offs. Further, the statistics used in support should be an embarrassment to The Times' editorial board.

As a bus driver and member of Amalgamated Transit Union 587, I have an obvious bias, but I also have some information for you to consider.

First you note that county employees receive "step increases" along with COLA increases. True, but only because management negotiated union concessions to create a lower starting wage for new hires.

The transit contract requires employees to work six years before they reach the top step. The majority of transit workers are bus drivers who also start as part-time, working only two-and-a-half per day. They must work a split shift to increase their hours. If they go full-time, they must then work nights, weekends and holidays to reach the top-step wage. Do you propose that the county give up the productivity of a lower starting wage?

As for COLA increases, they are based on an arbitrary index in which the top step does increase, but these are not exactly A.I.G.-type bonuses. The unions have negotiated for decades and have settled today for minimal, single-digit increases that would be completely inadequate if we experience double-digit inflation. Does Lambert propose to give up the county's protection against inflation if employees are deprived of the minimum?

It should be noted that COLA increases come only after inflation and workers have been behind on this cycle since it started, and county employees only get 90 percent of the increase. Why? Because the county agreed to pay 100 percent of the monthly benefits premium.

Finally, I would like to point out that comparing the county's benefit premium with the state's is grossly unfair. The sate has a far larger group, which results in an enormously reduced premium. They're called "group plans" for a reason.

Instead of investigating and getting involved in the difficult policy issues of contract negotiations, Lambert proposes a shallow and reactionary ordinance. The Seattle Times should be embarrassed for piling on without doing the minimal analysis needed to see that this idea is bunk.

-- Daniel T. Linville, Graham

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

What would it teach our children?

Your editorial position stating that General Assistance Unemployable should be cut to save education is appalling ["Some programs must die to save state education," Opinion, editorial, April 6].

GAU is a program that gives a little money and badly needed medical care to those who don't qualify for any other sort of help, but are unable to work because of their physical condition or mental illness. Washington state has such a program because, as you say, "we are a humane state and could afford it."

But when money is short, humaneness goes out the window, and you propose a false contest between helping those at the bottom to stay alive and educational expenses, even though you proposed another source of money for schools at the end of the editorial.

Some of The Times' editorial-board members must have children or grandchildren in public school. Why don't you ask those kids how they feel about that trade-off? Do they think their smaller classes and foreign-language teachers are worth more than human lives? What would that choice teach them?

Education isn't confined to school; we teach our children every day with what we deem worthy. The Times' choice is shameful.

-- Sally Kinney, Seattle

Real savings would come from education reform

How ironic that The Seattle Times editorialized for discontinuing the funding of the state's unemployable in favor of continued funding of public education.

Doesn't it occur to The Times that our state's public education is perhaps the major cause of creating the unemployable? The state could save taxpayers millions of dollars if it truly reformed how education is delivered to our children.

-- Bob Dorse, Seattle

Consequences for cutting program

Your editorial fails to indicate what would happen to the many individuals who would be turned out on the streets.

Where would they obtain the essential medication they need to function? Obviously, they would have to locate sleeping quarters and food. Would eliminating GAU switch the responsibility to our already overburdened nongovernmental social services? What would happen to those who rely on wheelchairs for movement? Has a cost/benefit analysis been made that shows that such a draconian action would actually save money?

Regarding financial support for our schools, perhaps getting the parents and the community in general to pay for competitive athletics that they feel are essential to a good academic experience would make large sums of money available.

-- Robert D. Theisen, Seattle

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

State should protect the basics

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

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

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

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

-- Marcia Landry, Bainbridge Island

Sacred cows should be sacrificed

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Scott and Maria Strickland, Seattle

Iraq, Afghanistan wars caused economic crisis

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

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

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

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

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

-- Jim Sawyer, Edmonds

Need a healthy, informed populace

In regard to the article "Senate budget plan would rescind gains" [page one, March 31], it seems ridiculous that the state Democrats plan to compromise their morals and beliefs simply because of a little financial trouble.

There are many other states in a worse condition than ours, and reducing our investment in the economic future of our state by cutting health-care and education funding seems contrary to every law of economics.

Our state will not recover with a sick, uneducated population --only an informed and healthy populace will be equipped to get our economy back on its feet.

-- Jay Farber, Issaquah

Cuts outweigh federal funding for health care

More than 130 community health clinics across our state are experiencing a dramatic increase in the number of uninsured patients seeking care.

The $10 million federal stimulus recently announced is a welcome acknowledgment of this trend ["A needed lifeline for hospitals, clinics," editorial, March 30].

But we must be clear: This is one-time federal funding that pales in comparison to the $300-400 million in health-care cuts proposed by the Legislature this week.

Clinic patient loads are increasing as funding resources for safety-net providers are being reduced to unsustainable levels. Clinics across the state are already anticipating layoffs, reductions in operating hours and extensive waiting periods for appointments. Proposed state budget cuts threaten the ability of community health clinics to serve their mission of caring for all who need care, regardless of insurance status or ability to pay.

For more than 30 years, community health clinics have woven a health-care safety net that now provides a health-care home to almost 650,000 Washingtonians each year. Communities across the state count on this safety net to be there when they need it, but the recently announced budget proposals will leave it in shreds.

-- Rebecca Kavoussi, Community Health Network of Washington/Community Health Plan, Seattle

Health-care cuts hurt growing number of uninsured patients

On behalf of the uninsured patients at Neighborcare Health, I appreciate the small, one-time grant provided to us by the federal government to serve the growing number of uninsured people. Unfortunately, these dollars are dwarfed by the substantial cuts announced this week by the Legislature.

Neighborcare Health provides care for more than 19,000 uninsured patients annually at our 15 clinics and their numbers are rising as people lose their jobs and their health insurance. We are caring for the economically disadvantaged, the uninsured and unemployed, as well as the workers of small businesses that can no longer afford to offer insurance to their employees. Due to job loss alone, we anticipate an additional 112,000 people in Washington state will be uninsured by 2010.

The drastic cuts to programs such as Basic Health being considered by our Legislature could make tens of thousands more people uninsured virtually overnight and permanently cripple our state's health-care infrastructure.

While the additional dollars from the federal government will help, they represent a small Band-Aid, insufficient to cover the gaping wound created by the state budget. We will all feel the pain if these budgets pass.

-- Marcus Rempel, interim medical director of Neighborcare Health, Seattle

Don't cut services for the blind

My father was 50 when he was in a tragic motorcycle accident that took from him his sight and independence. He has spent the last 18 months regaining use of his leg, which was badly damaged, and gaining back his confidence, with the loss of his sight. This could be anyone's story

My father is now attending a school for the blind and thriving. I've seen more change from him in the last week than I have in the last 18 months. He's becoming independent and social, and he's happy.

At the school, he shares an apartment with another visually impaired man, and is relearning the basics in life: house chores, cooking, taking out the trash and taking care of himself. He is also learning computer and life skills to help him in the future.

This school is more than just an opportunity for people like my father to learn things in a new perspective; it's a chance for them to become independent again, or for the first time ever.

He and my mother still live in Goldendale and without the apartment, which is funded by the school, my father would not have been able to participate in this amazing opportunity. The school is truly a blessing for the visually impaired, which is why my family and I were so saddened to learn that due to recent budget cuts, the school may be losing funding for the apartments.

This cut would mean that many students at the school would no longer be able to attend because, like my parents, they can't afford housing if they don't live in Seattle. Terms at the school can last anywhere from several weeks to several months, depending on what a person needs and wishes to gain from the program. Many students will not be able to continue their education after this term if funding is cut.

In Congress and throughout the government, at both state and local levels, money is being thrown away on unnecessary items and bad budgeting. The governor is requiring that the director of the Department of Services for the Blind present a plan for budget cuts.

I pray that the state of Washington makes it so the director can still offer services to the blind and that they can find a place in their budget for a program that gives visually impaired people, like my father, the independence and confidence they need to succeed in our society.

-- Denielle Seaver, Goldendale

Funding for K-12 education in jeopardy

I read the article "The state Senate budget: How 4 key areas would be affected" [News, March 31]. I am worried that the K-12 cuts will have a very negative impact on Washington.

My school district is talking about increasing classroom sizes and decreasing the numbers of teachers so kids aren't as well-educated. If kids aren't as well-educated as kids in other countries, we'll lose our jobs to them.

Also, my school district is talking about getting rid of sports programs, which will give kids more free time to get in trouble or do drugs. Sports keep kids healthy and if they like them, they can play them for the rest of their lives and stay healthy, which reduces medical costs.

Finally, my school district is talking about cutting busing to schools. Without busing, what if a kid got hit and killed by a car? It is unsafe to have all the kids walking to school near cars trying to get to work and school.

This is why we can't cut money for K-12 education, and if we do, it will have a very negative impact on Washington.

-- Andrew Hirschi, Grade 6, Totem Falls Elementary, Snohomish

Education system should be shielded

I guess we should have seen this coming -- but we didn't. Did anyone know that the budget crisis in this state would get this bad?

My parents are both working teachers living in Bremerton. Will they ever get to retire? The budget proposed by the Senate, and made worse by the House's proposal, will mean that educators and students alike will take most of the brunt of this economic downturn.

These tentative decisions with fuzzy numbers could literally mean that class sizes will be larger, teachers will be fired and our schools will suffer yet again from a funding system that lacks teeth.

An alternative solution is necessary. I am just outraged that the Legislature is dragging its feet and actually considering making these cuts that dramatically affect every community in Washington.

Our education system should be shielded and saved when the economy goes bad because an educated populace is what will pull us out of this recession.

Can you hear me, House Speaker Frank Chopp? I'm in your district, and these cuts go too far!

-- David Thompson, Bremerton

Let taxpayers choose which taxes to pay

I agree with Rep. Gary Alexander, R-Olympia, that vehicle-license applicants should not have to opt out of paying the fee; it's too easy to overlook such an option ["Would you pay $5 to keep state parks open?" page one, March 30].

At the same time, giving taxpayers the option to pay such a fee (the present system) may set a small precedent for allowing taxpayers the chance to choose which taxes they would like to pay -- an option that I would think that Republicans and Libertarians alike would find agreeable.

Maybe someday it will become thinkable to institute an income tax with at least a few such options.

-- Robert Dunshee, Seattle

Jim Bates / The Seattle Times

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

Parks fee unfairly targets most vulnerable

Editor, The Times:

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

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

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

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

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

-- Sonya Jones, Olympia

Increase students, cut administration instead

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

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

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

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

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

-- Susan McKeehan, La Conner

Crisis caused by irresponsible spending

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

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

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

Just wait and see.

-- Nick Shultz, Lake Forest Park

Leave it to the professionals

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

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

-- William L. "Bill" Brayer, Edmonds

Stop anti-public-employee sentiments

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

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

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

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

-- Nate Hough-Snee, Seattle

Misguided funding for suicide prevention

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cutting living will Web site a no brainer

We are facing a $9,000,000,000 budget deficit this year (I wrote it with digits rather than using "billion" to emphasize the size of the number).

So when I read an article telling us that $180,000 is being cut from the budget to operate an online registry of living wills ["Budget cuts endanger state registry of living wills," page one, March 28], all I can think is, "Good -- there's $180,000 we shouldn't have been spending anyway." I couldn't believe reading a quote saying, "This is one of the most shortsighted cuts imaginable." Huh? 600 people have signed up for this registry. It costs $180,000 a year to run. That's $3,000 per person. And for what?

Living wills have worked for a long time without online, state-run registries. If there is truly a benefit to an online registry of living wills, then I'm sure some enterprising company will fill the void -- perhaps even the one that is currently contracted by the state to develop the site.

-- Jim Kelly, Redmond

Residents can give even more to state parks

The front-page article on state parks ["Would you pay $5 to keep state parks open?" Times, March 30] was technically correct on one way people could contribute to state parks now, but didn't note that $5 is the suggested donation listed on vehicle license renewals.

State residents have the option to give more to support state parks by adding $25, $75 or greater amounts each year. Thoughtful folks go a step further when they request state parks special design plates that demonstrate support in a more visible way and also help fund resource protection and recreation in the Evergreen State's parks.

Many of us remember the bad times of 2002, when parks in the southeast were given up and we had to reach for our wallets each time we drove into publicly owned parks. We are more than happy to pony up $50 or more when we renew our vehicle tabs. We appreciate the services we get from state government and understand that our state parks have been inadequately funded for years.

-- Reed Waite, Seattle

Early prison release a dangerous solution to economy

I have read that the state wants to possibly close McNeil Island and the Washington State Penitentiary main east complex as a solution to state budget problems ["Closure of McNeil Island prison on the table," Politics Northwest, March 17].

That would result in hundreds of staff losing their jobs and thousands of convicted felons being released onto the streets to join the already swollen ranks of the unemployed.

You really think they are going to be offered jobs when there are not even enough for the public as it is? Early release is not a new idea and has been tried over and over before and failed. This is a stupid nonsolution that would only make the economy worse and put the public at great risk. Washington already has a higher prison population out on the streets than most states do. I believe we have more than enough crime to go around the state already.

-- Edward Downs, Walla Walla

Rethink government priorities

No, I don't particularly want to pay an extra $5 to keep state parks open ["Would you pay $5 to keep state parks open?" page one, March 30], nor to have bake sales to prevent school closures, nor having inadequate police patrols, nor shutdowns of public pools and libraries.

What I would prefer would be a major rethinking of sources of tax revenues and of governmental spending priorities.

I'd prefer a 150 percent capital gains tax on derivatives and land flips and other investments that divert money away from investments that create jobs for anyone other than the overpaid parasites in the financial sector.

I'd like to limit the tax breaks businessmen get to amounts of the subsidies we provide to people on welfare for housing, food and entertainment.

I'd like an end to tax breaks for religious institutions.

I'd like a retrospective application of inheritance taxes on estates worth more than the lifetime earnings of someone with a median income.

I'd be delighted to have all tax breaks disappear for the owners of professional sports franchises.

Most important, I would like a readjustment of governmental spending so that Americans stop paying so much for a military that is out of proportion with any military on this planet, so there isn't enough tax money to go around for other public priorities.

Being self-appointed cops of the world attracts terrorists and international ill will rather than protecting America, and it certainly messes up other priorities for public spending.

-- Tony Formo, Seattle

Quit trying to scare us

The Legislature will unveil its budget "cuts" later this week. The projected budget deficit is slated to by around $9 billion and I believe the Democrat majority will use this as a way to scare and even intimidate Washingtonians to vote in tax increases.

We do not need to continue this feast-or-famine budget cycle if our Legislature would make a shift in it's budgeting tactics. Implementing "priorities of government," used to fix the 2003-2005 $2.5 billion deficit, would greatly change how the current deficit looks.

We can right-size state government -- under Gov. Christine Gregoire the number of state employees has grown by 6,100 positions.

Currently, ferries must be built in Washington state. This takes shopping on the free market off the table and therefore causes us to pay more for new ferry construction.

These are only a few ideas I have read about, but have not heard our Legislature even attempt to run with. Instead of constantly trying to scare Washingtonians, it is time for legislative representatives to work for our citizens and come up with real solutions (not looking for a taxpayer handout).

-- Todd Welch, Everett

Why impose hardships on students?

I have three points to make in response to the student-perspective-devoid article "Gov. Gregoire seeks higher-ed surcharge" [page one, March 18].

First, the idea that the "tuition surcharge" will be decreased at the end of the biennium fails to take into account the fact that tuition has never been reduced by the state.

Secondly, increases in the Pell Grant and the higher-education tax credit were created to make college more affordable for families, not more affordable for the state.

Finally, students are already swimming in debt and any graduate in this economic crisis is lucky to find work to keep their head above water. Using the debt capacity of students to bail out the state will cause hardships for Washington's students and families far into the future.

-- Mike Bogatay, executive director, Washington Student Lobby, Olympia

Legislator misguided

The tuition hikes proposed by Reuven Carlyle ["Open doors for more: higher tuition, more aid," guest commentary, March 19] are nothing more than new taxes targeting middle-class parents trying to put their kids through college. These are "regressive taxes" disguised as tuition hikes.

Regressive taxes are taxes that, in design and implementation, disproportionately overtax those in most need. For example, for a $2,000 tuition hike, a family making $50,000 a year pays 5 percent of their gross income for the tuition hike -- parents already burdened by student loans. The person making $200,000 a year pays 1 percent of gross income, and only if they choose to attend our public university instead of a more expensive private school.

This was a favorite "trickle down" tool in the Bush years, "avoiding new taxes" by using regressive fees.

I know Rep. Carlyle. He is a smart, successful honorable man. But he is sadly misguided on this issue. He represents one of the wealthiest legislative districts in Seattle.

This tuition increase is as unfair as the bonuses to AIG execs. These hikes should trigger outrage, which unfortunately will detract from solutions President Obama is seeking. Worse, they will cost many kids in this state the chance to go to college.

-- James E. Lalonde, Seattle

Something better than cap-and-trade

Your Sunday editorial ["Green bill hits red light," Opinion, March 15] urges the Legislature to continue Washington's momentum on reducing greenhouse gases. You imply our only choice is the proposed cap-and-trade system or nothing, and overlook the primary alternative: a straightforward tax on carbon.

Unlike cap-and-trade, a carbon tax could begin immediately, sets a predictable price, requires no new bureaucracy and involves no impenetrable auction schemes. It is preferred by most economists and some industry leaders, including Exxon's CEO.

Our friends in British Columbia already have a carbon tax, and several bills are before Congress. Rep. John B. Larson, D-Conn., has introduced a bill that would tax carbon producers at $15 per ton, increasing steadily each year. Nearly all revenue would return to the public in lower payroll taxes.

In response to those who say we need a cap on emissions, this bill sets annual benchmarks on total emissions leading to reduction of 80 percent by 2050. If we aren't on track to achieve those benchmarks, the tax could be raised further.

Washington should lead the region by adopting a carbon tax as the most effective way to begin dramatically cutting emissions to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.

-- Dorothy Craig, Seattle

Tuition surcharge just another tax

I was extremely disappointed to read that Gov. Christine Gregoire is proposing instituting a 3- to 7-percent tuition surcharge in addition to the 7-percent increase scheduled to go into effect soon ["Extra university fee proposed," page one, March 18].

While she consistently promised no new taxes or fees, her attempt to claim this charge is not a fee is insulting to the citizens of this state.

In addition, this surcharge is also an attempt to circumvent the promise of the Guaranteed Education Tuition Program (GET) offered by the state. GET promises that if you buy GET credits now, it will cover the increased cost of tuition in the future.

Currently the annual "fees" range from $500 to $1,300 at state schools and are not counted as part of the tuition increases. Those fees can be absorbed by using GET credits but that reduces the purchasing power of the credits.

By imposing another significant fee, the value of the GET program is further degraded.
The governor needs to reduce spending, not waste time coming up with new synonyms for tax increases.

-- Dan Devaux, Lake Tapps

How green is our Legislature

The failure of cap-and-trade legislation was not "a win for major Washington businesses," as you report, but an utter failure of foresight, leadership, vision and conscience ["Lawmakers thwart Gregoire's cap-and-trade plan on climate," Politics & Government, Monday, March 16].

Similarly, the state Senate's passage of SB 5840 (which seeks, with cowardly illogic, to disembowel the voter-approved, job-creating I-937) indicates that our alleged representatives lack the spine to make difficult decisions for our long-term prosperity.

We -- citizens, lawmakers and businesses alike -- can postpone accountability on climate, energy and ecological issues, but the reckoning will come sooner than we like, and it will be all the more expensive for our foot-dragging.

Meanwhile, our elected representatives have missed the opportunity for real environmental leadership, passing the torch (once again) to our Oregonian neighbors -- who, I pray, will have the courage to do the right thing. If our great-great-grandchildren-to-be could vote, I know they'd say the same.

-- Graham Brown, Seattle

Our "stimulating" economy
The value of work

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

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

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

-- Cara Hazelbrook, Arlington

Two sets of rules

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

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

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

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

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

-- Kelly Powers, Seattle

Curious assets

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

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

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

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

-- Harry B. Bosch, Silverdale

Lifestyles of the new economy

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

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

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

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

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

-- Todd Ray, Auburn

Casualties of reckless, past spending

It's not enough that Gov. Christine Gregoire asked the Washington State Parks Department to prepare for a $10 million reduction in their budget for the next two years and the closure of 13 state parks in the process. Now our fiscally challenged governor is asking the Washington State Parks Department to prepare for a $23 million reduction and the mothball of up to 33 parks.

This is insane! These are tough times, but there are far-better solutions than mothballing and liquidating our parks.

Consider a day-use fee. But, make it nominal and equitable. Almost every other state, from conservative Idaho to liberal Connecticut, charges day-use fees. Many states, such as Florida, are raising their fees to meet this fiscal crisis, and the citizenry supports it.

Consider the privatization of certain concessions, such as camping, at some of our parks to reduce government expenditures and help bring in more revenue. British Columbia does this with their provincial parks.

Consider a special lottery to help pay for parks, like what Oregon implemented several years ago.

Consider selling bonds to keep parks open. New Jersey is currently considering this idea.

But do not -- absolutely do not -- close or mothball our parks! I find it absolutely absurd we are getting ready to celebrate our state parks' centennial in four years and this is how we'll show it: by closing and liquidating our parks.

I am absolutely fed up with how our governors and legislators (former Gov. Gary Locke liquidated a handful of state parks earlier this decade) have consistently shown such a lack of commitment to our state parks.

Call and write your representatives and demand that our parks not be the casualties of
reckless past spending. We expect our public officials care for and protect our natural and cultural heritage -- not liquidate it.

-- Craig Romano, Mount Vernon

A relevant workplace issue, not another union issue

I cannot fathom how you took a bill that prohibits religious and political meetings called by the employer and argued it was a bill about union issues ["Another one-sided labor bill for Washington," editorial, March 2].

Your editorial states, "In America, religious and political beliefs are private, and employers generally have no reason to hold meetings about them."

But, in my experience, employers, as well as managers and employees, make use of any chance to bring up their religious and political beliefs in the workplace, often in subtle ways. Are you not aware of prayer before work in many places of work? Just watch the prayers at beginning of sporting events and U.S. Army raids.

What do you think goes on in the privacy of an office meeting where the employer is evangelical or has strongly held political views?

Your editorial board needs a little workplace experience beyond The Seattle Times.

-- David Caley, Redmond

Employers need communication restriction, not unions

Regarding The Times' March 2 editorial, there was one point not touched on.

While the employer can force employees to attend meetings to discuss labor issues, unions must rely on volunteerism to attend any union functions, and they must do so during off-work hours. This can clearly favor the employer over the union, with respect to communications.

-- Brian Peterson, Seattle

Jails don't solve the problem, treatment centers do

I've read articles about victims of the recession and I wonder if our neighbors are aware of all the ways in which they are going to be victimized.

Gov Christine Gregoire's budget is resulting in the closure of drug- and alcohol-treatment centers that rely on funding from the state. These treatment centers cater to the lower-economic class -- the same class responsible for the majority of domestic terrorism, crime and addiction.

It is in these treatment centers that users learn how to become tax-paying citizens, instead of unemployed addicts.

Gregoire's solution to saving money will result in increased homelessness, addiction and crime. My question to the people is where they want their addicts: in treatment centers, learning to be responsible economic contributors, or breaking into their homes, so as to steal their heirlooms to trade for drugs?

I think people are under the impression that drug abusers can and should just stop. But, the problem is those in the grips of addiction are not able to stop using drugs without treatment.

Through my own research, I found after treatment, users consume fewer community resources, go back to work and resume taking care of their families.

Those who go back to jail learn how to be better criminals.

I think protecting funds that pay for addiction treatment is the only economic choice. Otherwise, we could have addicts raising the next generation.

-- Jason Scott, Bremerton

Connecting the dots on our own

Thank you for acknowledging that in January the amount of the stimulus dollars was expected to be much greater.

However in realizing our state will get fewer dollars, you should have told us the Mercer Street fix our mayor supports lacks millions of dollars in order to be "shovel ready," which is no doubt why the transportation committee correctly chose to exclude it from the stimulus funding.

-- Keith Biever, Seattle

Substitute version increases animal welfare

In response to Kathy Notenboom of Woodinville, whose letter regarding Senate Bill 5651 was recently posted on seattletimes.com ["Quality treatment over quantity," Northwest Voices, Feb. 18]:

The House Judiciary Committee passed a new, substitute version of the bill that is awaiting a decision in the Rules Committee. This substitute version does not allow animal control officers to enter anyone's property without a warrant and doubles the limit of 25 breeding dogs to 50.

The remainder of what the bill does is only good: It increases cage space, provides sanitary food-and-water access and increases the general welfare of these animals.

The Rules Committee will decide wither this bill will reach the Senate floor. If you love animals or think puppy mills are just plain wrong, please contact members of the Rules Committee and express your support for this bill.

A list of committee members is available at http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/RUL/members.htm
Please consider taking the time to call or e-mail; you may save a life.

-- Audrey Long, Seattle

About time to end an abomination

Your Feb. 25 editorial is beautiful ["Puppy-mill owners should pay," Feb. 25]! Thank you.
Puppy mills are an abomination. It's appalling that the authorities didn't move any sooner to shut these institutions down.

But, it is not just puppy mills. If one wants a new puppy, it is best to go to a shelter or visit www.petfinder.org

I hope this is what President Obama will do: adopt from a shelter and set a good example for the rest of the country. Breeding puppies for profit must stop.

"Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight." - Albert Schweitzer

-- Claudine Erlandson, Shoreline

Tell us where and why and we'll cut
I know you're not a bunch of cowards down there at The Times, so prove it. Tell us what your Feb. 23 editorial really means ["State must cut, cut"].

You say the people of Washington are not expected to fill the budget "chasm." If this is true, you should get tough and fess up to who will suffer the budget cuts.

You say if lawmakers pass a bill to actually raise the money needed, it would be an "economy killer." Why is killing the economy unthinkable, but it's perfectly fine to kill the poor and sick by eliminating programs that serve their most vital needs? Why is it fine with you to jeopardize the future of Washington's young people with draconian cuts to education?

Come on, Times, get tough. Tell us. If you want "cut, cut, cut," you had better say where.
What you need to admit is that the cuts you suggest mean a miserable death and a ruined future for many state residents. If this is what you really want, don't hide under a cowardly editorial. Say it.

-- Isabel D'Ambrosia, Seattle

A push off the cliff, not a free fall

The subheading on Feb. 20 read, "NW economy 'fell off cliff' in past few months" ["State's $8B shortfall is among the worst," page 1].

It should have read, "The governor and her Democrat allies in Olympia drove us off cliff." This would be more fitting, considering Gov. Christine Gregoire's irresponsible spending over the last four years.

-- Dennis Flem, Langley

Income tax would be financial hardship

The Washington state Legislature has spent over 30 percent more than it has in the last four years.

Now is the time to use the priorities of government to determine what programs should stay and which ones should go. Get it done.

The Office of Fiscal Management's fiscal analysis does not measure or assess the secondary effects of a personal-income tax on employment, investment, wages, income per capita and other variables.

Senate Bill 5104 has three major fiscal-reform elements that would drastically change the state's revenue structure.

First, it proposes a graduated state-income tax on individuals and businesses, except corporations. Second, it eliminates the state portion of the property tax. Third, it reduces the state portion of the sales tax from 6.5 percent to 3.5 percent.

Below are impacts of SB 5104 on citizens:
As proposed, it represents a dramatic tax increase for people who do not own a home or have children;
As proposed, it taxes citizens whose low incomes classify them as poor; and
As proposed, it punishes those who succeed financially by taking larger portions of their income as it increases.

The financial hardship that an income tax would bring to families is designed to be offset by the elimination of the state portion of the property tax and by a reduction in the sales tax. In addition, deductions are allowed for spouses and children, similar to the federal income tax structure.

-- John Derrig, Bellevue

Removing uncertainties, ensuring quick production

I would like to encourage all your readers to support House Bill 1086. This bill will create a Feed-in Tariff, which is a standard contract for green-energy power producers to receive payment per kilowatt sold into the grid.

The rate is different depending on the type of green energy, whether solar, wind, biomass, etc., and project size. The important thing is it removes all price questions when working with the local utility to interconnect.

This legislation will require the utility to connect the project into the grid and everyone will know the price they will receive for the green energy (electricity) they produce, before building the project. Most of the uncertainties will be removed that today prevent quick implementation of green-energy power production.

HB 1086 is moving through committees in the state House at this time, where it will then head to the Washington state Senate for a similarly successful committee review and to the governor's desk by the end of this session, April 29.

Please contact your local house representative, as well as your state senator, as they need to support the legislation in order to ensure it passes.

-- Mark Thomas, Bellingham

Time to get moving before greenhouse gases stack up

The Seattle Times is doing a good job of facilitating debate regarding the best policy for combating our ever-accelerating accumulation of greenhouse gases.

I favor the carbon tax as the most effective and simplest way to encourage increased conservation and development of clean energy. However, I think the Cap and Invest bill pending in the Washington state Legislature deserves support.

The main thing is to get moving since the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it will be to cut emissions to a sustainable level.

-- Robert Jeffers-Schroder, Seattle

Stop the surcharges

Puget Sound Energy's sale of all of its green power to SoCal Edison overlooks the 20,606 residences and 899 businesses that voluntarily pay a surcharge to receive green power from PSE.

At the very least, these surcharges should cease as of June. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission may have been surprised by the sale, but they should be on top of this situation affecting over 20,000 of their ratepayers.

-- Jim O'Malley, Bellevue

Falling short in neutral language
Andrew Garber's bias is glaring; please make it stop. In his article about the state budget ["State's $8B shortfall is among the worst," page one, Feb. 20], he repeatedly uses the word "shortfall."

This is as liberally biased a word as you can choose. It implies the incoming tax is falling short of what it should be. Garber speaks of "the shortfall" as if it is fact, rather than his opinion.

Imagine using the word "overspending," which is equally biased in the other direction, implying spending is more than it should be. "Overspending" just as much of an opinion and has no place in news reporting.

Your job is to be neutral, not to imply where the level of taxation, or the level of spending, should be.

From then on, I recommend you use neutral terms such as "budget deficit" or "budget gap" without implying taxpayers are not doing enough -- that they are falling short -- even if that is your bias.

-- John Panesko, Chehalis

Creating jobs by the sheer volume of economic activity

Based on history, government attempts to "fix" the economy in the late 1920s and early 1930s made the stock-market crash and ensuing recession into the Great Depression. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and the rest of the Democratic Party demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of free-market economics.

The government's role should be to have minimal, but effectively targeted regulations, low tax rates that allow and encourage business development, expansion and research. This kind of government would create the jobs we want by the sheer volume of the resulting economic activity.

Stop with guarantees and entitlements; people driven by necessity will strive harder to achieve and succeed.

-- Jeff Iacchei, Renton

Playing it safe for our children

In reading your paper, I found both the editorial urging oversight by the state of body piercings ["Making a point about piercings," Feb. 18], and the news bite about a dog groomer being charged with animal cruelty for piercing kittens ["Pierced kittens," Newsline, Feb. 18].

I fully support the ideas expressed in your editorial, but want to comment on the animal-cruelty charge.

How many times have you seen little girls (even babies) wearing pierced earrings? Who is doing these piercings? My guess is any reputable shop would not do the piercings; it's mainly being done by the child's relatives or friends. Should a mother have the right to make this choice for her child? I would think if it's cruel to pierce animals, it's certainly cruel to pierce children.

I would like to see the Legislature take this a step further, making it illegal to pierce children, unless the child is old enough to ask for such a procedure, understand the ramifications and have the consent of a parent.

Certainly with all the associated health issues that can develop, we need to be looking out for children -- especially if their parents aren't.

-- Connie Loveridge, Covington

Sickening symphony of slashing the budget

In 1729, during a period of great economic uncertainty in Ireland, Jonathon Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal," in which he satirized the attitudes of those who devalue the poor by suggesting the poor simply sell their children as food. In these more enlightened times, our state lawmakers appear ready to dine on federal funding intended for the care of the poor.

On Feb. 2, the House voted to slash almost $5 million from the care of nursing-home patients for the remaining fiscal year (prior to July 1). By an 83-13 vote, Democrats and Republicans joined in a sickening symphony of praise for an all-cuts approach to budgeting.

The proposal went to the Senate and, on Feb. 13, the same Democratic Party that created Medicaid under Lyndon Johnson was united in its Senate vote to begin dismantling Medicaid's vital protections for nursing-home patients.

This budget-cutting comes before the legislature even gets around to addressing Gov. Chris Gregoire's biennial-budget proposal. Her no-new-taxes budget would cut 7.5 percent from nursing-home care as part of $130 million in Medicaid cuts to long-term care over the next two years.

Amazingly, state cuts to vital Medicaid care may occur at the same time the federal government increases its commitment to that care.

Indeed, even while it pillaged nursing-home funding, the House budget action assumed pocketing an additional $205 million in federal Medicaid contributions through July 1 alone and an additional $575 million for the following two years.

The actual increased Medicaid assistance to Washington from the federal stimulus package may be $2 billion.

Unfortunately, avaricious-state governments had united and defeated health-care advocates' efforts in Washington, D.C. to push "maintenance of effort" requirements. Such requirements would have prevented the perverse phenomena of reduced funding as additional federal dollars intended for care roll in.

Rather than address our economic crisis with the sorts of thoughtful ideas we've already seen from the Obama administration, both parties in Olympia are seemingly competing to see who can kick over the most wheelchairs through mean-spirited, social-service cuts.
Medicaid spending primarily goes toward wages. That's why it's recognized by economists as one of the best means of economic stimulus. Because caregivers are hardly wealthy, their earnings generally go straight back into the economy as spending.

And every dollar cut from state Medicaid spending surrenders a matching federal dollar. Thus, through severe Medicaid cuts, state government may destimulate the economy faster than the Obama administration can restore it.

Beyond this economic reality is the fact that vulnerable citizens, and those who dedicate their lives to caring for them, stand to suffer. More than dollars and cents are at stake. Nursing homes do not manufacture widgets. We provide skilled nursing care -- and life-transforming rehabilitation -- to people with serious medical needs, who are often at the worst points in their lives. And, we do so amid constant uncertainty created by ever-changing, state-reimbursement policies for roughly two-thirds of the patients on Medicaid.

For the last few years I've worked alongside the union representing caregivers to fight for better respect for low-wage workers. Gov. Gregoire has been a great help. Yet, now I fear our hard-won gains may evaporate due to state politicians' shortsighted reactions to this economic crisis. I fear Medicaid cuts will close facilities and displace both caregiver jobs and our state's most vulnerable citizens.

-- Jim Roe, San Juan Care & Rehabilitation, Anacortes

Gut the plan

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said, "We have to educate our way to a better economy."

I love this quote. I just wish it were followed up with an action plan on how to do it. Something like the final report of the state legislature's Basic Education Finance Task Force?

I wish we had a plan that included an honest assessment of what children need to succeed in class from access to early education to a professional team including librarians, counselors and tutors.

I wish we had a plan that made sure new teachers got intensive mentoring and support, provided for built-in analysis of competitive pay, gave districts the resources to increase math, science and language courses and explained what was being funded and why, so citizens could see how they're investing in the future.

Oh wait, we do have that plan. Fabulous! Because here's what we have to fix:
Eighty-three percent of Seattle Public Schools graduates can't get into a university. They don't meet the entrance requirements.

In the state of Washington, giving kids the chance to go to college isn't considered "basic education" and it isn't funded as such. We can fix this. We can redefine basic education and clarify the state's financial obligations. We can stop shifting the financial burden onto local school districts, which have neither the resources to pay for our schools and staffing, nor the legal ability to raise adequate funds.

Or, we can let the House and Senate bills that would implement the plan die. We can gut the plan. We can study it for two more years. We can continue with an inaccurate and irrational way to predict school costs. I mean, it's just the future. Nothing pressing.

What's it going to be, Olympia? Can you commit to our children and fix this problem? There are 46,000 kids in Seattle Public Schools. Sure would be nice to send more of them to college.

Sure would be nice if this Washington could educate its way to a better economy.

-- Ramona Hattendorf, Seattle

Refresh the antiquated-funding formula

School boards in three of the biggest districts in King County -- Issaquah, Seattle and Bellevue -- all recently endorsed House Bill 1410 and Senate Bill 5444, upon the recommendations of the Basic Education Task Force. Their leadership on these bills show they truly understand we cannot afford to wait to make these long, overdue reforms to our education system.

After one and a half years of study by the Basic Education Task Force and two years of study by the Washington Learns Committee, these bills finally put a strong foundation in place to bring the Washington state definition of "basic education" up to the 21st century and clean up the antiquated-funding formula we currently have in place.

New high-school-graduation requirements will assure our kids will graduate ready to enter a four-year college, technical field or workplace without remediation. In a region with some of the most innovative technology in the world, we need to be preparing our graduates to enter the workforce in our own backyard.

I urge you, and I urge our legislators to fully support these bills and bring the Washington state education system up from 42nd in the nation.

Do what's best for our kids.

-- Deborah Parsons, Issaquah

Warehousing offenders unlikely to strike again

John Carlson ["Don't weaken 'three strikes' law," Feb. 14] made some thoughtful points in his guest column opposing the removal of second-degree robbery as a strike. But he overlooked important demographic information.

Violent crimes are rarely committed by women or older men; perpetrators are predominantly young men and, increasingly, juveniles. By the time a habitual offender is just a few years into his third-strike (lifetime) incarceration, he is probably past his violent-crime-prone years. The state is warehousing individuals who are both unlikely to repeat their violent actions and more likely to require costly medical care at taxpayer expense.

Do we truly believe large numbers of our fellow citizens are beyond any kind of redemption?

A more sensible and humane alternative would be to provide short sentences, intensive rehabilitation and post-release supervision for the first strike, then mandatory, 20-year-minimum sentences on the second strike.

Fewer innocents would be victimized, we would save taxpayer money on our penal system, and we would avoid declaring anyone irrevocably hopeless.

-- Alex Myrick, Seattle

Bizarre details in homicide story

Murder is committed daily across the nation. When the circumstances leading up to or causing the death of the victim are bizarre, the case often makes national news. The relationship between the suspect/perpetrator and the victim, such as husband and wife, can be relevant, but there are always other details that go unmentioned.

One has to wonder why the personal history of Christine Newton-John in "Spouse 'exercised to death' " [News, Feb. 15] was included. What does her being transgender have to do with the situation? Her occupation was not reported; her religion wasn't reported; her race wasn't reported.

Why was the fact that she was transgender included? If there is a reason, why was it also not mentioned that the husband was not transgender?

Had this non-relevant fact not been the case, would the article have made a point that the wife was heterosexual? I, for one, have never seen reference to that in other cases.

-- Bill Dubay, Seattle

Managing the behavorial-change business

In "There is a smarter way to handle nation's spiraling prison costs" [syndicated column, Feb. 15], Neal Peirce makes good economic sense that we must look for alternatives to imprisonment. I believe there also needs to be a significant shift in the values, beliefs and behaviors on the part of the staff in corrections institutions.

For seven years, I've worked across the country as a consultant in both state and federal corrections institutions. I work with wardens and train psychologists, treatment specialists and educators inside prisons. In that time, I have met way too many corrections employees who believe the men and women being sent to prison are there for punishment instead of as punishment.

This is more than a semantic difference.

There is a widespread perspective that corrections systems are in the safely-housing-of-prisoners business, instead of the behavioral-change business -- the true business implied by the name "corrections." Prison programs are evaluated on their success in lowering recidivism. But, prison programs do not exist in a vacuum inside prison walls.

Why not evaluate our prison institutions on the same standard of lowering recidivism?

Ninety-five percent of people in prison today have release dates. They will be sitting beside us as we commute to work on mass transit, behind us in line as we step up to buy our movie tickets and in the car in front of us as we drive down the freeway.

There is an opportunity to foster change for those incarcerated today. If we don't, we'll talk about public safety!

-- Bill Thatcher, Seattle

Clutching at straws

As a parent and former teacher, I would like to applaud Bellevue, Issaquah, Northshore, Renton, Spokane and Seattle school boards for endorsing Senate Bill 5444 and House Bill 1410. These bills are products of study from the Basic Education Task Force and, if passed, will dramatically update the education system in Washington state.

Despite Washington's Constitution, which states it is the paramount duty of the state to amply fund basic education, no child within the borders is receiving the education they deserve. Districts are left clutching at straws, trying to cover all the needs unfunded by the state. There is no way to make the money stretch far enough.

These bills lay groundwork for a system in which all children can succeed, no matter the school they attend. With early learning, full-day kindergarten and increased graduation requirements, the bills will allow children to succeed and compete in the 21st century.

We need to stop educating children as we did 30 years ago when we last discussed the definition of "basic education." The current system is clearly failing students when they graduate -- if they graduate.

While it's natural to fear something new, to continue to throw money into a broken system doesn't make sense. Without a broad change to the nature of public education and the definition of what we demand for our children, we cannot expect real change to take place. We need to recognize that what worked 30 years ago doesn't work now.

-- Carol Porkka, Bellevue

Giving away the funds we have

Again we reward people who don't respect our laws ["Controversial student-aid bill," Local News, Feb. 12].

With so many Americans loosing their jobs daily, the state is giving our funds to illegal citizens. We should be supporting citizens who need education to get jobs, not people who came here illegally.

When our country and economy are in such bad shape, you'd think our representatives would get it. Instead, they want to give away our country and the people who elected them. I, for one, am totally disgusted!

-- Kathleen Bukoskey, Everett

Quality treatment over quantity

Daniel Paul's guest column ["Stop cruel exploitation of man's best friend," Times, Feb. 11] failed to mention a couple of key facts.

First, Senate Bill 5651 would give animal-control officers the right to enter your property without a warrant. Just cause and due process would go out the window.

Second, the number of dogs allowed would negatively impact even responsible dog breeders. It is the long-term goal of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to eliminate purebred dogs and, eventually, pet ownership. They are all about animal "rights" versus animal "welfare."

Instead of introducing new legislation, how about giving animal-control officers the resources to enforce the laws already in existence? Focus less on how many animals a person has and more on how they are treated. Make it harder for people found guilty of animal cruelty and abuse to move elsewhere and commit the same crimes again.

We all want to see animal cruelty eliminated. SB 5651 is just not the way to make it happen.

-- Kathy Notenboom, Woodinville

Perpetuating problems

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

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

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

Protect them.

-- John Derrig, Bellevue

A walk down Olympia lane

I met with a group to spend the day socializing with our legislators in Olympia and was compelled to share my observations. While everyone in the offices that we visited was polite and courteous, I was intrigued with the stark differences in response.

My Republican representative filled us in on the tasks that she was working on, which were about government transparency, program oversight and agency responsibility. Exactly what is needed, I thought, in this economic and social environment. We were respected, it seemed, for our concerns, efforts and contributions.

What I gained from leaving my Democratic senator's office was drastically different: Gas prices will be going up, property taxes will not be going down and we will all have to purchase new electric cars. I felt perceived as selfish and greedy for wanting to enjoy my RV with my family or desiring to feel safe on our outdated ferries rather then support mobile dental care or some other such entitlement.

Don't get me wrong, I know their heart is in the right place. I just question their ability at deductive reasoning. We would still have to burn gas, oil and coal or go nuclear to recharge all those electric cars.

-- Kelly Emerson, Camano Island

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.

Cutting confidence for students in alternative schools

I'm concerned about Senate Bill 5410. Passed into law, it would remove choice in alternative education.

I chose alternative education for my child over district schools because he struggled with daily classroom learning and there was a large student-to-teacher ratio.

I also made the decision to pull my son away from the district-school environment because of the depravity of student-promoted drug access, prolific sexual activity and filthy language.

I chose Washington Virtual Academy (WAVA), a tuition free, statewide public school using a K-12 curriculum, blending technology and innovation with a traditional academic approach.

WAVA provides this engaging education for many types of learners. Professional, certified teachers are meticulously involved with responsive instructional skills; 93 percent of WAVA students passed the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL).

SB 5410 eliminates this asset to education. Students must return to the district or enroll in their district's online program, which is not really a school.

Defend the choice to have alternative learning. Call your senator and ask them to reject SB 5410. Help students like my son obtain confidence in material, learn at an individual pace, experience a personal-learning approach and have the opportunity to escape the social ills of public school.

Tell senators to vote no so that really no child will be left behind.

-- Tanya Noel, Graham

Take a reality check

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

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

Apparently this is not a goal of Sen. Murray.

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

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

-- Joan Blackwood, Belfair

A huge, empty room

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

We'll be paying for years.

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

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

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

-- David Wright, Seattle

Casualty of the Gregoire budget

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

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

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

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

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

-- Craig Romano, Mount Vernon

Be willing to pay for a healthy environment

New hope for a cleaner Sound

According to your article about new rulings requiring stormwater-pollution reduction in Puget Sound ["Stormwater ruling a win for small cities," Around the Northwest, Feb. 3], small cities will have some time before they must adapt more-stringent, "low impact" development standards required of bigger cities and counties. Although the rules delay the day of reckoning, they point small city planners toward the same goals eventually.

There's another way to tackle the costly problem of reducing stormwater pollution in Puget Sound. It's in House Bill 1614, Invest in Clean Water, now being considered by the state Legislature.

This bill would fund critical water-quality projects across the state through polluter-pays fees levied directly on petroleum products possessed by companies in the state. This could provide more than $100 million each year to implement solutions in problem areas around the state.

Is this a fair way to pay to reduce stormwater pollution? Contaminated runoff from our roads and urban areas is the No. 1 water-pollution problem in the state. This pollution comes largely from petroleum products and makes up 90 percent of the surface-water pollution flowing into Puget Sound.

Both taxpayers and producers should pay for protections we need for a healthy environment.

-- Tim Bernthal, Seattle

Benefit one, benefit all

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

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

-- John Tirpak, Seattle

Cap greenhouse-gas emissions, create green jobs

Need a job? Help pass Cap and Invest.

Tens of millions of dollars are pumped out of the state each day to pay for imported fossil fuels. That's money we should be putting to work here in Washington state.

The cap-and-trade bill, which was revealed by Gov. Christine Gregoire last week, is a fast step in the right direction to keeping our money local. Both bills, House Bill 1819 and Senate Bill 5735, would create a cap-and-trade system, putting our state on a firm path to meet our global warming, pollution-reduction goals.

By partnering with six states and four Canadian provinces, we will first put a cap on the amount of greenhouse-gas emissions that major companies produce. After capping these companies at a certain level, these bills will require them to either keep that level consistent or gradually reduce it.

Also, by requiring polluters to buy permits if they wish to pollute, we will generate enough money to enhance our clean-technology innovation. It will be possible to create green jobs and assist working families struggling with high-energy costs. According to the Office of Financial Management, these investments would help support 2,900 jobs for the next two years.

Furthermore, by ending our dependence on fossil fuels, a cap-and-trade system will drive our transition to a stable and more prosperous economic future.

If passed, the program will not take place until 2012, so it's important that Washington acts now. This legislative package will greatly benefit our economy while protecting our interests in the national climate-policy debate, and position us for success in the new energy economy.

-- Gabrielle Evans, Greenwood

Third strike for three-strikes law

It is time to remove Robbery 2 from the list of "three strikes, you're out" offenses.

Washington was the leader in this three-strikes legislation. It is time for us to be a leader in correcting it.

Something is foul in the state of Washington and the nation when Bernard Madoff, who has ruined so many lives, gets mansion arrest, and a third-time purse snatcher is in prison for life.

We need to support Senate Bill 5292 to remove Robbery 2 from "three strikes."

-- Ruth Yarrow, Seattle

Simplifying school finances

Our Legislature is meeting in Olympia right now and one of the biggest long-term issues on the table is developing a new K-12 school finance system.

A bipartisan, legislative task force has developed a new, transparent model for funding a "basic education" system in Washington state, as required by our state constitution. It uses a prototypical school as the basis for figuring costs.

The current system is extremely complicated; we can't determine the true cost of educating Washington state students. Funding increases would be paid for by K-12 education assuming a larger share of the general fund (50 percent as it was historically). Funding would increase over six years, starting in 2011.

House Bill 1410 and Senate Bill 5444 embody these changes. Find them online at www.leg.wa.gov.

What is the response? The bills are supported by the state PTA, the League of Education Voters, Stand for Children, 35 Puget Sound school superintendents and parents from across the state. The Washington Education Association (WEA) opposes the bills and has been lobbying against them aggressively.

The legislators who drafted these bills need our support. Will you e-mail them, write them or call them? Our legislators want to represent us, but they need to hear from us.

-- Kirsten Taniguchi, Woodinville

Expect more violence and crime

The state of Washington has found its financial solution with alcohol. The state plans to open 10 more stores due to a 6 percent increase in sales last year.

Drink up Washington! It is now your civic duty. This all looks good on paper until the morning-after hangover. Expect more DUIs, domestic violence, property damage and crime. We are going to have to ride it out because they have cut funds to detox, treatment and drug courts.

Drug courts cost the state roughly $3,000 per conviction each year with less of a chance of repeat offense, compared with $20,000 to house them in prison with no treatment and a good chance to offend again.

But, we are going to hire some more prison guards. While we are at it why don't we just lower the drinking age to expand our alcohol-consumer base?

-- Jim Marshall, Bremerton

Using beer to boost the budget

Perhaps I was not surprised that a survey appeared on a local TV station asking people whether they thought the state of Washington should build more stores and expand their liquor business to sell beer. The rationale stated was to bring in more revenue to the state, presumably to mitigate against the some $2 billion deficit it faces. How clever!

Washington state already has a monopoly on the sale of hard liquor, a privilege most states do not enjoy. As I see it, Washington state could use this "foot in the door" to further expand its growing empire, increase government jobs and bring more power to the state government.

It is ironic that a state that champions the name of our first president, George Washington, would overlook one of his most succinct quotations: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

-- John Mizenko, Issaquah

Giving physical therapists and patients a plan B

The Times recently reported on the Olympia rally attended by 625 physical therapists in support of Senate Bill 5230, seeking to lift the prohibition of spinal manipulation by physical therapists in Washington state ["Physical therapists, chiropractors square off over bill," Politics Northwest, Jan. 22].

I am a physical therapist affected by this issue. Physical therapy (PT) education programs nationwide are all required to teach spinal manipulation in order to be accredited. It is the accepted standard of evidence-based care for acute-spinal pain.

In Washington state, two of the three PT programs are state-funded with taxpayer dollars. Students graduate as Ph.D. PTs who cannot use this procedure in Washington state. They can move to 48 other states in the U.S. and perform spinal manipulation, and, when they do, they take the taxpayer investment with them.

SB 5230 will require all PTs to prove to the Washington State Department of Health (WSDOH) they have the necessary training to use this technique.

Passage of this bill allows a group of medical professionals to do what they have been trained to do based on evaluation of musculoskeletal dysfunction as part of their overall treatment plan, and allows the patient to choose the practitioner that fits his or her needs and philosophy of care.

-- Brenda Matter, Seattle

Resorting to reflex

While I understand Go. Christine Gregoire faces difficult choices in attempting to balance the state budget, I would like to recommend an essential criterion "jobs programs" must meet to be considered fair to our populace: gender equity.

Several areas facing deep cuts in the state budget have high ratios of female employment, namely education, health care and social services. In contrast, jobs Gregoire intends to create are in male-dominated fields, notably construction.

I believe it has become a reflex in our country to equate jobs programs with construction work, dating from Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) program, which unabashedly targeted young men.

Please, rather than tradition, consider the wide range of professionals currently unemployed in our state who could benefit from a jobs program innovatively updated from the 1930s version.

-- Trish Goedecke, Edmonds

A strange idea of compassion

Sorry, but I really can't buy it when Gov. Christine Gregoire says her recent cuts to social services and education were "compassionate" and that she did it because she "had to." If that is her idea of compassion, I would hate to see what her idea of cruelty is.

Does she "have to" spend billions on projects that serve to line only the pockets of the corporations, who throw dollars at her and our lawmakers? Are tunnels and cars and public works more important than people's lives? Than our children's education?

Although it was privately funded, did Gregoire "have to" hold an inaugural ball and spend a quarter-million dollars on it? I read the governor's inauguration speech, in which she urges each of us to give of ourselves in these troubled times. Wouldn't it have been a good idea to take the money for the inaugural ball and put it back into society?

Why doesn't Gregoire cut her own pay like the management of the organization I work for, so that us ordinary people won't lose our jobs?

Put your money where your mouth is, governor.

-- Jim Wikel, Everett

People before pets

After reading "Bill: humans, pets buried in single grave" [Local News, Jan. 14], I have to question state Sen. Ken Jacobsen's reason for being a Washington senator. It appears he has forgotten he was elected by the citizens to serve their interests, not his own.

We have more important issues to act on in the state of Washington. Sen. Jacobsen needs to stop wasting the precious time of our lawmakers.

I can understand the relationship the senator had with his cat, but if every citizen wanted to pass a bill that put their own interests first, we would never accomplish the larger issues affecting more of the population.

-- Kathleen Santti, Mukilteo

The governor's promise

Gov. Christine Gregoire won my vote in 2004 with her promise of universal health care for all children in Washington state by 2010. She locked in my 2008 vote in 2007 when she signed the Cover All Kids Bill. It was one of those rare moments when the hope that accompanies a daring pledge starts to feel like reality.

I understand our state faces daunting budget challenges. But stepping back on this promise is not the way to solve them ["Goal to insure all kids could fall to budget ax," page one, Jan. 11].

We have a $5 billion deficit and the governor's answer is to cut needy children from the state's Basic Health Plan and limit access to those not yet covered? That's no answer; it's a shortsighted travesty that will make these hard times harder for everyone.

Gregoire's proposal to ax a quarter of a billion dollars from the state's insurance plan for low-income kids is not only a grievous breech of voter trust, it's an unacceptable breech of leadership.

Leaving nearly 80,000 children uninsured in Washington will only serve to drive up insurance costs -- for the state, for employers and for those of us who can still afford to pay for it privately -- as more and more families turn to emergency rooms in lieu of low-cost primary care. It is the very definition of the phrase "penny smart, pound foolish."

I understand the challenges of the current recession. But reneging on a promise to take care of our most valuable asset for a prosperous future, our kids, is disgraceful. Balancing any budget on the backs of the poor is unjust, especially in times of economic crisis. And especially when there are other, more just and equitable solutions.

The governor and our state lawmakers must consider all options. At the very least, before taking asthma medicine away from a child such as Sarah McIntyre, ask me, the voter, if I'd rather see the governor break her promise to kids or her no-tax stance.

-- Cheryl Murfin, Seattle

Cars in the basement,
citizens on top

Washington State Department of Transportation

The south terminus of the proposed tunnel would be near the SODO stadiums.

Editor, The Times:

Just looking alongside the elevated [Alaskan Way Viaduct], all one sees are dirty tired buildings, covered in decades of soot and neglect. This is what a new elevated roadway promises, too. A tunnel, opening up the city to the Sound, will promote a vibrant edge where windows are battened and unopened now. ["Tunnel: A deal, but how to pay?" Times, page one, Jan. 13.]

How can a serious city planner support a proposal that replaces the breezes on the Sound with fumes and the roar of traffic and accidents? How can we as a culture elevate cars and denigrate ourselves? Cover ourselves in grime and block off the views of the Port, the Olympics and the water?

Remember, no matter how expensive the tunnel, the benefits in access to the Sound will outnumber it; the rise in real-estate values and taxes to the city will pay for it; we all will be proud of our waterfront and the linkages between the urban and the natural environment.

Portland's downtown had a renaissance after tearing down the elevated roadway. San Francisco destroyed its elevated roadway after earthquake damage. There are precedents. We can improve our city by putting the cars in the basement and our citizens on top.

The Sydney Opera House cost $140 million, an astronomical sum back then. Yet now, the world over, it is a symbol of the whole country, for visitors and its citizens alike. Long after the hand-wringing about price is over, will we be proud of the roadway, or will we have "settled" for a "cheaper alternative" that doesn't change a thing?

-- John Richards, Tacoma

We already said no

Wasn't it just a few years ago that "we the people" voted no on the tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct?

Well, once again the political powers that be have decided "we the people" can't make decisions of any importance and made their decision that the tunnel was the right choice and the bill for their great plan will be shoved down our already gagging overtaxed throats.

Gee, its wonderful to be part of a democracy here in King County and Washington state, where votes count only if Gov. Christine Gregoire and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and their royal courts approve.

-- Jeanne Read, Seattle

Yes to the tunnel

I am in complete agreement with King County Councilmember Larry Phillips regarding the subject "Putting the viaduct in a tunnel lets city, neighborhoods thrive" [guest column, Jan. 11]. Our commitment to the region will play out over the next 56 years as it has in the past 56 years.

We must come up with a replacement that addresses the problem -- make that, the opportunity to create what our children will have to live with -- now. I side with you completely regarding getting it done right this time.

-- Wayne Lubin, Seattle

Immigrant students suffer

I am an ESL teacher at Renton Technical College. I realize we are currently in a state of crisis because of the grim economic situation, but I hope that there are no further cuts to the already deeply cut basic-studies departments of local colleges. It is in these departments that the local immigrant population is working hard to better their skills in order to become productive, active members of our community.

In the last 20 years, I have taught in various college classrooms. The ESL students at Renton Technical College are the most earnest, enthusiastic students I have ever worked with. If you wonder how important these courses are to them, please consider the fact that they are taking the three-hour classes for no credit, at the beginning or end of a long workday, without recognition.

Most people don't realize how difficult the English language is. Someone's accent stands out to us more than the fact that they have just strung together a coherent sentence. A missing "the," "a" or "r" that sounds like an "l" makes us think the speaker doesn't speak English well.

We don't often think about what it took to get to this point: overcoming differences in our pronunciation and the pronunciation of other languages, difficult article usage, sentence structure and a myriad of idioms speakers must learn.

For the many immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as adults, language mastery is that much harder. And for almost all of them, it must be tackled "after hours."

Already, both the short-term and long-term effects of these cuts will be felt in the community and work force for years to come. Immigrants of all backgrounds will be forced to work in jobs below their capacity, important bridge-building and communication skills will decrease, and the multicultural world we live in will become even more factionalized.

I realize decisions are extremely difficult now. But in the current economic climate, classes in the basic-studies department should be growing, not decreasing. These classes teach the skills that are the basis for building a competent, vibrant work force.

You probably talk to or buy something that is made by an immigrant nearly every day. The benefits of ESL are far-reaching and affect virtually every person living in this area and beyond.

-- Elizabeth Falconer, Renton Technical College

Keep the Housing Trust Fund

Recent news about our state's looming budget deficit signals the need to make deep cuts in critical areas. Resources vital to economically healthy communities are under threat of elimination. A case in point is the state's Housing Trust Fund, an initiative that has an exemplary performance record. The fund has consistently been a catalyst for making affordable housing available to the growing number of people whose employment and income makes affordable housing an evermore-elusive goal.

The housing crisis so prominent in other regional economies is now permeating our own, which typically has been more resilient. The prudent thing to do is to place a priority on opportunities to acquire land and move affordable-housing efforts forward. Unfortunately, we are staring at the harsh but very real possibility of slashing the Housing Trust Fund by 50 percent. This response will have devastating effects on advances currently in progress, and will squeeze the production of affordable housing with latent sacrifices compounded for years to come.

We are living in unprecedented times. Cuts and sacrifices are inevitable and necessary. But with so much to cut, there is also extraordinary importance attached to the criteria by which our leaders judge the merits of worthwhile programs. Whatever those criteria, they should openly acknowledge and give weight to the effectiveness of the Housing Trust Fund and the fundamental equity issues it addresses. The fund is an achievement ahead of its time and one in which Washington state should take justified pride.

This is a year to regain our collective foothold. Let's keep the momentum on those efforts that contribute substantially to Washington's uniquely progressive national reputation. Let's use the intelligence and resourcefulness for which we are equally well known to passionately advocate for creative and effective approaches to make up for our budget shortfalls and minimize losses to the Housing Trust Fund.

-- Marty Kooistra, Seattle

Ready to pay forward

The world has changed, yet Washington stands still and refuses to shift because politicians are polarized. They are too concentrated on conflicting positions, disabling them to think of solutions serving the greater good. What has happened to the pioneer spirit of Americans? A decision delayed solving problems for a positive or required solution is a strategy of inaction. The result of this delay tactic is to simply blame another, creating an endless cycle of victimization with an outcome of anger, frustration and no solution.

The media are advising the public to brace for legislative inaction from the 2009 legislative session because of budget deficits. The traditional "wagon circling" has already commenced. Need I say more about politicians to far exceed the public's expectations for 2009?

In view of the aforementioned, I would like to advance two unpopular recommendations certain to guarantee not being re-elected, however that do coincide with future economic realities, which are: "pay forward" or "if you want to use a service you pay for it."

Consider, if you will, a strategic plan for education and transportation reform implemented and executed by 2015 with a sliding tuition fee starting in the sixth grade to offset costs, as well as upgrade teacher salaries. All Interstate roads would be tolled; a 100 percent, aboveground mass-transit system would be constructed in Seattle and Spokane.

Simply stated, all goods and services have a reasonable cost for use and I think you will find a public appetite for change in the Pacific Northwest. I would invite you to think about what it means to live in a globalized economy or integration as the key concept since the world is connected via the Web. We live in a world far different from the post World War II period of internationalism, featuring a Cold War system with a world divided by walls.

I am willing to pay forward for opportunity costs to change. Are you willing to do the same? As I see it, the options are to stay in the past by reducing budgets and continuing to grow apart or to find a way to grow together.

-- Charles H. Collins, Kent

Stick with what works

Pay raises for experience run only for about the first 14 years of a teacher's career, usually ending when a teacher is about 36 years old ["Solid education funding begins with a clear vision," editorial, Dec. 7]. Those "seniority" raises amount to a little more than a cost-of-living raise.

There is plenty of research indicating that experience brings many advantages in classroom management and teaching skills that would validate the basis for longevity-pay increments.

Merit-pay raises usually do not appeal to teachers because the basis for assessing merit can be seriously flawed. Outcomes of standardized testing might be used as a basis for determining merit; using test scores, teachers working with lower-achieving students would be eliminated. Administrators have biases, such as favoring teachers they have hired. And some teachers are more self-promoting.

Teachers believe that each colleague has a distinctive role to play in creating a successful experience for their students. It is hard to see how to sort the equivalency of one contribution with other contributions. What teachers usually fear about merit pay is that it would be hard to determine a professionally acceptable basis to award that merit designation.

-- Mary Johnson, Seattle

Ellen M. Banner / The Seattle Times

After a press conference was held where Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, from Madison, Wisc., put up a winter solstice sign in the state Capitol, a few people hang around to check out the sign, which is meant to counter the Nativity scene (at right).

We all need a little reconnecting

Editor, The Times:

What does the word "religion" mean ["Deck halls with controversy," Times, News, Dec. 2]? It has its root in the Latin verb "ligere," which means "to connect," the English word "ligament," which means "that which connects muscle to bone." So, "religion" means "the business of reconnecting." But reconnecting what?

The great human dilemma is that, at the core of our being, we have a deep need for relationships, from the most personal to the most global. Sadly, also at the core of our being, we have a diabolic tendency to destroy that for which we have this deepest need.

The problem is pandemic, from preschool to the pulpit, from the bedroom to the boardroom. We desperately need to restore broken relationships of all kinds, to "reconnect."

Some of us believe that this is best done by application of human reason, education and strength of character. Others, like me, believe we cannot accomplish the task by our own human effort, so we find resources from a source beyond ourselves.

During this festive season, whether we worship at the altar of human reason, or at the manger of the Great Re-connector, or elsewhere, we seek to do the same thing, to reconnect and repair the relational ruins all around us.

We would do well to remember that this kind of reconnection is what wise folk seek, and to season with grace the ways we strut and display the symbols of our reconnection in public places.

-- Mel McIntyre, Bellevue

Take it down

We have been told for seven years now that Islam is a peaceful religion -- not the violent crew that is terrorizing the world. I believe that.

The line "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" belies that belief. The line is found in the display by the Freedom From Religion Foundation located at the state Capitol in Olympia. It tars all who have religious beliefs with a broad brush of intolerance.

There is no room for the inclusiveness and respect shown for others with belief found in most churches. It is flat out wrong to represent those with religious beliefs falsely.

The message throughout the last half of the 20th century brought by churches here and abroad has been tolerance and acceptance of the beliefs of others, including those who profess agnosticism or atheism.

The sign in the state Capitol is wrong. It is hate speech. The sign by the Freedom From Religion Foundation is intolerant of any belief not their own. It is amazing that it is still on display given the Legislature's professed desire to respect the beliefs of others and its policy of inclusive nondiscrimination. The sign should come down.

-- Bob Barren, Seattle

Have we not learned?

By now I think everyone can see what a slippery slope the presence of religion in government can be.

As much as I appreciate the Freedom From Religion Foundation placing a display that represents my view, it should now be clear to everyone that the best solution is to keep religion out of government. The controversy regarding religious symbols at the Capitol building could have been avoided if the establishment clause of the First Amendment had been strictly followed.

Keep religion out of government and out of the Capitol.

-- Don Van Valkenburg, Woodinville

Keep your stones
to yourself

I am a Christian and my faith is not shaken by others' beliefs. I am happy to celebrate anyone that has a belief.

What I want to know is why [TV pundit] Bill O'Reilly, along with the people who follow his lead, has so little faith in his Christianity that a sign in the Washington state Capitol can give him fear; he must not have a faith that is worth his weight in salt.

This is the country that demands the separation of church and state; this is why we all have the right to openly practice our faiths. The slippery slope is not the sign in the Capitol building -- it is in the willingness of religious zealots to restrict others' right to support their own beliefs.

World, grow up and stop thinking about throwing stones at others.

-- Marc Hill, Renton

What do you choose?

On one side, we have those who believe in Christmas. Their display is a pastoral scene of a small baby laying in a manger, surrounded by his mother, father, angels and shepherds. It's the symbol of a story of a loving God who becomes a man to walk in his shoes and accept the punishment for man's sins on Earth.

This God shows man how to live a virtuous life, and teaches man to love one another. As documented in the New Testament of the Holy Bible, it's a richly woven, highly detailed, yet amazingly subtle and nuanced story of love, redemption, hope and peace.

God promises that those who love each other and believe in him will make the world a better place and have the reward of eternal peace and love in heaven. It's an offer of hope for a better world and eternal love. But it is an offer made with the acknowledgment that man has free will. All of the hope and promise of this biblical story is contained in the simple display of a baby in a manger.

On the other side, we have a poster board from a local office-supply store, with an insult written on it.

I think the two displays, side-by-side, are perfect.

The message comes across clearly and effectively. It's a choice.

-- Mike Martucci, Sammamish

Merry Christmas

Atheists have a right to display their beliefs, as do others. Had their display said, "We celebrate winter solstice; we celebrate naturalism; we celebrate humanistic philosophy," that would have been fine.

However, they criticized Christians and Jews on this most sacred holiday. Their display denigrated the beliefs and values of the majority of Americans. Their display was disgusting, ridiculous and petty.

-- Tommy Delzer, Federal Way

In our own backyard

Puget Sound is drowning in toxins, depleted of salmon and filled with invasive species that are destroying its wonder, beauty and its wildlife.

In January of this year, the Northwest region of NOAA's [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's] National Marine Fisheries Service submitted a 251-page document of a recovery plan for this Northwest icon and how to best address the environmental problems of Puget Sound.

It has taken NOAA years to determine that the best way to save our beloved orca and clean the Sound is to "support salmon restoration, clean up existing contaminants, prevent oil spills, enhance public awareness and educate the public on actions they can participate in" as well as several other solutions.

Nonprofit organizations such as Orca Network, The Center for Whale Research, Save our Wild Salmon, Cascadia Research, People for Puget Sound and many others have been saying these things for years and it has fallen on deaf ears.

How long will it take before our Legislature, governor and the businesses that continue to pollute Puget Sound begin to do something about it? The time is now.

We can no longer wait to reverse the damage we have done to one of the most beautiful, abundant and extraordinary ecosystems in the world. It is a gift to live in such proximity to stellar sea lions, harbor seals, peregrine falcons, eagles, humpbacks, minke whales and orcas. This is all in our own backyard. Most people will never have the opportunity to see such spectacular wildlife in their lives, yet, we continue to harm Puget Sound, delay its cleanup and ignore the facts.

It has taken years to destroy Puget Sound and it will take years to restore it. We must stop procrastinating and begin working together -- vigorously, eagerly and passionately – on the solutions necessary to improve the Sound's health and in sustaining its wildlife.

-- Paris Luce, Kirkland

Can we say, "conflict of interest"?

The story in today's Seattle Times about outgoing Public Lands Commissioner Doug Sutherland presents a fair picture of the facts surrounding the situation ["State signs lease for new dock to expand Maury Island mine," News, Dec. 3].

What it does not do, however, is ask the very critical question of why a defeated candidate for re-election, who received a $50,000 contribution from Glacier Northwest (funneled through the Committee for Balanced Stewardship, which campaigned for Sutherland's re-election) is permitted to approve a request from that same contributor as he is about to leave office.

I'm not an expert on the Washington state ethics laws, but there is an obvious conflict of interest that must be addressed.

Preserve Our Islands, a Vashon-based not-for-profit that is fighting Glacier's plans to expand the gravel mine in question, will surely raise those questions in court. However, all Washington residents need to consider the impact of such contributions and the appearance of conflict of interest that has occurred. Our lawmakers in Olympia should re-examine our ethics rules and amend them if necessary to prohibit elected officials from taking action on any matter that involves contributors to their campaigns.

-- Stephen Benowitz, Vashon

Connect the dots

You stated that "The role of a healthy, robust Sound in the region's environmental landscape, economy and Northwest soul is well understood" and I hope that is true ["Sound Advice For Olympia," editorial, Dec. 3]. However, in more than one past editorial you have dismissed the decadelong opposition to a large gravel mine on Maury Island as "NIMBYISM," which leads me to wonder how well you understand it.

On page B5 of the same day's paper, there was a story about outgoing Public Lands Commissioner Doug Sutherland's issuance of a 30-year lease to Glacier Northwest for it to build a massive new dock to expand its gravel mine. For heaven's sake, please connect the dots. Glacier's mine is not a NIMBY issue; it's about the health of Puget Sound and the sanity in governmental response to environmental problems.

-- Edna Dam, Vashon

Ellen M. Banner / The Seattle Times

Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, holds up a foundation sign at the state Capitol building.

Seek the truth

Editor, The Times:

Those interested might want to reflect on the meaning of the word "myth," that is, a story that may not be true in itself but that illustrates and points the way to a greater truth ["Atheists put up sign in Capitol building," Times, News, Dec. 1].

For instance, if I were to point a finger toward the moon and say, "look at the moon," and you look at my finger instead, you are not seeing the moon.

Venus and Aphrodite were myths that pointed to the realities of love and beauty. Albert Einstein said, "Myth has its charms, but the truth is far more beautiful." Think about that.

-- M.M. Hall, Seattle

Oh, the irony

There is some amusement in "Deck halls with controversy" [News, Dec. 2] that many readers may not have noticed. Freedom From Religion Foundation members are described as delighting in their sign in Olympia, which mocks the meaning of a nearby Nativity scene.

One of the older Foundation members, described as a lifelong atheist, is quoted as saying, "For a long time, we've been just a voice in the wilderness." Does he know who first described himself as a "voice in the wilderness"?

In a King James Bible, you will find that it is John the Baptist announcing that Christ will soon make his appearance. In Luke 3:4, John sees himself as a fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy of such a voice in Isaiah 40:3.

Interestingly, John the Baptist was crying out against careless people who were pretending that there was no God.

-- Don Klompeen, Bothell

Life goes on

Why are Christians so threated by a sign? Does it detract from their faith? Will it detract from anyone who truly believes? Will it detract from their proselytizing?

It's the same response I have to gay marriage: In what way would my own marriage be hurt by any two loving individuals being allowed to marry? Life goes on, faith goes on, with or without a sign in Olympia.

-- Susan Neely Gresset, Seattle

Thank you, governor

Thank you, Gov. Christine Gregoire, for defending our freedom to choose atheism. Only if we are free to reject religion are we truly free to practice any religion.

Even as a mainstream Christmas-tree hugger, I feel dangerously threatened by those who say we've "gone too far" in practicing religious freedom in our corner of the country.

What I learned in Sunday school was to live charitably with others. I didn't learn that it doesn't apply to those with different beliefs. Our leaders need to insist on tolerance and defend our citizens from oppression, exactly as you are doing.

-- Charles Wilson, Seattle

Go dark

We are sorry our house is "dark" for Christmas. But by being dark and not putting up our Christmas lights this year, we are saving $7 for two new strands of lights, $3 for replacement bulbs and approximately $10 in electricity use. That totals $20.

This $20 will go to Hopelink (our choice of charities.) We can live without Christmas lights but needy families can't live without food.

-- Randy Hughes and Leslie Addis, Shoreline

A simple solution

We continue to incarcerate nonviolent people under the "three strikes" law for entire lifetimes at the rate of more than $1 million each ["Legislature, governor must find $5 billion in spending cuts without raising taxes," editorial, Nov. 23].

Some 72 percent of those incarcerated under this legislation are in prison because of second-degree robbery strikes and/or second-degree assault strikes. Second-degree robbery does not involve weapons, injuries or violence. Most second-degree assaults are simple barroom brawls.

200 of these people multiplied by $1 million equals $200 million. This expenditure is a waste of human life as well as a waste of taxpayer dollars.

-- Moira Hennings O'Crotty, Tacoma

Two houses -- one too many

Unlike the U.S. House and Senate, both houses of the Washington state Legislature have to be based on districts of equal population. This makes the second house a redundancy and the Legislature costly and inefficient. Of our 50 States, only Nebraska realized this and operates with a one-house Legislature.

The 2007 to 2009 legislative operating budget was $165,845,000. With 98 state representatives and 49 senators, this budget comes to about $1,300,000 per member. If our national Senate can operate with 100 members, a one-house Legislature of 100 members should be sufficient to handle the state's legislative duties.

If we had such a Legislature during the 2007 to 2009 biennium and if it operated at $1.3 million per member, the total budget would have been $130 million -- a saving of more than $35 million. This is a reduction in cost of more than 20 percent and is about half of the cost of a new Keystone ferry.

A change to a one-house Legislature should come before a lot of the other cost reductions that have been proposed for the 2009 to 2011 state budget.

-- Jack Sceva, Stanwood

Jump in and help

We now have a new president calling for public education to take a harder look at charter schools and merit pay to improve student learning in our schools ["Obama vows swift action on economy," Times, Politics, Nov. 23]. I teach these children. I get up every single morning thinking about, working for and feeling the needs of my class deeply as I teach the curriculum demanded of me.

I, like most teachers, put in an average of 10 to 12 hours each workday and most weekends. Yet, each year more is asked of us. Teachers don't need charter schools or incentive pay to work any harder. It is not just a matter of curriculum. Japan, China, Belgium, France, Germany and so many more countries have higher achievement because they treasure learning as a nation, and look at and respect teachers as a valuable tool in life. The U.S., on the other hand, has an underfunded and punitive program called No Child Left Behind. We have done this to ourselves.

We value 30-second commercials, the quick fix, the fast car, sharp clothes and short articles to read. Great books, well-crafted plays or movies and in-depth public discussion of issues are poorly read and attended, at best. We don't seek to embrace the challenge of a deeper meaning or question why. It takes too much time and effort.

Now our economy is in the tank and politics are more divided than ever.

Our businesses and government don't inspire the hard-work ethic; it is an "I got mine, what-are-you-looking-at society." I want to hear and see the public, businesses, newspapers, governors, mayors and our president encourage greater pride in student learning. Start reminding everyone on the TV, newspapers, public discussion, on fancy company letters, how important it is to be with your child.

Our parents need to set higher expectations for learning. We cannot be satisfied allowing TV, cellphones or CDs to be the best way for kids to spend so much of their free time anymore. The very people who are critical of public schools are too silent, except at election time, or when a house sale or major business deal has school as part of its sales pitch.

The public-school system is good when everyone is behind it all the time.

Right now, people are only behind school when it is convenient. If these places we call schools are so important at election time, then why are the classrooms and their teachers rarely visited or asked for input, except by parents. Stop blaming the teachers and start asking what are you doing? Jump in.

-- Jim Thompson, Kent

We need fresh thinking

Here are some suggestions on how to handle the budget crisis in higher education.

Cut art history, philosophy, American studies, music therapy, communications, dance, English literature, Latin, film, religion, psychology, sociology, etc. Those subjects can be taught in private, religious, arts and philosophical schools. Most people with those degrees don't get a job in their field of study anyway. Instead, they could forgo college and get a head start on their careers.

Also, cut sports.

Let's give our students real opportunity. Higher education needs to adapt to the challenges we face: energy independence, global warming and world poverty. To do this, bolster the sciences, medicine, law, business,
education and engineering. This will also help us to be more competitive against strong emerging markets around the world.

The world needs technological breakthroughs. Change is difficult, but hope lies in the courage to make necessary changes in the face of adversity. We need fresh thinking and bold action.

-- Kevin Wright, Shoreline

Read between the audit lines

I read in Sunday's Seattle Times, regarding the state budget cuts recommended by Gov. Christine Gregoire, that the performance audits prescribed by Initiative 900 be sliced out ["Gregoire looking at massive state budget cuts," News, Nov. 30].

I realize the audits are budgeted at $27 million but they have shed light on more wasted money. I have read each audit and these are vital to assisting in actually getting a handle on the state budget.

Here are a few examples from the audits: collection of state debt, $15.6-$160 million in one-time savings; Department of Transportation results wrap-up, engrossed substitute Senate Bill 6839, $27 cost savings for every $1 spent on the audit; Department of Transportation, highway maintenance and construction, 34 recommendations resulting in potential cost savings and unnecessary expenditures of $41.9 million; Port of Seattle, construction management, 51 recommendations resulting in $97 million unnecessary costs; Department of Transportation, administration and overhead, 11 recommendations resulting in $96.9 million over five years.

These examples demonstrate the need for the audits and for our state Legislature to start enacting many of the recommendations.

-- Todd Welch, Everett

No-brainer on health-care premiums

Are you kidding me? In this day and age of tough economic times and the huge budget cuts facing the state of Washington, this is a no brainer to me ["Should King County workers share the cost of health premiums?," News, Nov. 28].

It is unbelievable that county workers have 100 percent of their health-care premiums paid for themselves and their dependents, no matter how many children they have. There are few companies in the private sector that have this benefit anymore.

Our tax dollars are going to pay for better benefits for county employees than what you can get in the private sector. The more children you have the better your benefit package is.

It is time to level this playing field permanently.

Let's get with the times and trim this budget where it should be trimmed.

-- Diane Stuvland, Kenmore

Health care starts here

The state of Washington faces a health-care crisis greater than our budget deficit. Gov. Christine Gregoire and the Democratic Legislature provided funds for 80,000 children to get health insurance. Meanwhile 46 million Americans have no health insurance.

Facing a $4.1 billion deficit, there will be pressure to cut funding for children's health care. Children are not the future of this state -- they are the present. Quality education requires healthy students. Employers need educated workers. So it is only natural that the governor and Legislature should fully fund health care for all children and work with the President-elect Barack Obama administration and Congress to reform our health-care system.

If the GOP blocks health-care reform again, that party will have destroyed the American economy and outsourced U.S. health care to Korea and Thailand, where surgical operations are affordable.

-- Thomas Karwaki, Seattle

Washington State Department of Transportation

An artist's rendition of what a multi-tiered Waterfront Parkway might look like as a replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Don't forget,
you work for us

Editor, The Times:

The opinion piece "Don't mire viaduct plans in lawn-sign politics" [Times, guest columnists, Nov. 26] demonstrates the arrogance of the political elite at its worst. Former mayors Norm Rice, Charles Royer and Paul Schell contemptuously lecture us that the viaduct decision should be left exclusively in the hands of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, not "lawn-sign politics."

So who is on this "stakeholder" committee? Am I on it? No. Are you on it? No. It is a self-appointed committee of the area's political elite and so-called experts. And who are the "obstructionists" who are putting up lawn signs? They are interested citizens like you and me.

The fact that three previous mayors (i.e., public servants) would suggest that the citizenry should butt out is appalling. Who do they think they are? We are the real stakeholders, not them. We are the ones who will be living with the consequences of the viaduct decision.

Today, our country finds itself in serious trouble as a result of the failings of the political elite and economic "experts." As a nation, we have voted for change. At the core of that change is the demand that our leaders not forget who they work for.

We are not silly, irrelevant "lawn-sign" rabble rousers, we are citizens.

-- Dick Schwartz, Bellevue

A turkey of an idea

The Waterfront Parkway? Yuck, what a crummy idea ["High on elevated viaduct," News, Nov. 26].
We think the existing viaduct is bad. At least we can see through it in spots. A giant wall -- that's [Speaker of the House] Frank Chopp's idea, an architectural monstrosity of monumental proportions that will put Seattle at or near the top of the "worst public projects in history" list. Building it would mean that Seattle would take a bad thing and make it 10 times worse -- a historic civic blunder far worse than the construction of the original viaduct.

I say build a more-slender elevated roadway (if we must) or do a surface option. The surface option allows the greatest flexibility for future changes. We don't have the money for a tunnel anymore, unless it can be done under the coming "Works Progress Administration"-type federal spending.

Our waterfront is a jewel, not a condo location. It's the city's front door to the world. The Chopp wall is the architectural equivalent of those horrid tract houses that show only their garage doors to the street. It's not a problem at all for those inside looking out. But the wall would be awful for everything and everyone behind it.

What would a mile-long, mixed-use condo/mall-wall say about us? Tacky rubes who lack any vision or social/public responsibility. With all due respect to Chopp and in keeping with the season, this idea is a turkey.

-- Pete Rogerson, Seattle

Taxing is not the only way

Why is it our politicians feel the need to cut essential programs to force tax increases instead of looking at innovative approaches to funding increases ["Gregoire looking at massive state budget cuts," Politics, Nov. 30]. Not all funding has to come from taxes.

How about advertising naming rights for schools, gyms and all athletic stadiums at each school that has them? Sell advertising billboards along the fences and walls of these same stadiums, like they do at Safeco or Qwest Field. Open up schools to advertising in creative ways, such as school clothes sponsored by various companies.

Eliminate school-operated lunchrooms and sell food-court rights to serve students. You can do this by setting reasonable health standards and fixed costs that vendors will meet if given enough school access for volume sales.

Increase the number of vending machines and charge more, providing a product line approved by the School Board. How about eliminating books and going to online materials that students can access from home? Kids don't take books home anyway because there aren't enough for each student, so they leave them in school and share them. Most of today's kids are more savvy at the Internet anyway.

Rent out school facilities on weekends or at nights when possible to organizations and groups that will pay for usage. Do a transportation study and provide passes and maximize usage of mass-transit buses for high-school students instead of providing school buses for routes that are well-serviced. There is no need to add thousands of dollars of cost to students and families, just start thinking more creatively.

-- Art Francis, Issaquah

Now is the time to increase funding

Washington state's constitution specifically outlines its paramount duty is to fund public education. With the knowledge that voters overwhelmingly passed Initiative 732 and Initiative 728, it is extremely disconcerting that The Seattle Times would propose that we cut teacher pay and increase class size ["In tough times, suspend education initiatives," editorial Nov. 26].

How many times do we need to list the cold hard facts: Washington state is 47th in the nation for class sizes, teacher pay is the lowest on the West Coast and far below the national average, and over the years many research reports and think tanks have said smaller classes and higher teacher salaries improve the quality of education.

The answer is quite simple: Even in hard economic times, we need to be working on improving teaching and learning in our state, and the baseline is class size and teacher pay.

As a teacher gains experience, just like a doctor or lawyer, he/she is also learning. Problems or challenges become easier to anticipate. There are more tools in his/her tool belt to assess learning and reteach, modify or increase instruction in particular skill sets. This information can then be passed to newer colleagues entering the field.

What is happening in education is a type of brain drain. Because of the high stress, huge workload and extremely low pay, teachers leave their field, their passion, to keep their families functioning. It is easy to criticize teachers and believe the myth that they are greedy and lazy. But there are few other professional and governmental jobs where pay is not guaranteed and workload continually increases without compensation.

Because we have a system that encourages a revolving-door type scenario, stability and knowledge are lost.

People also criticize the public-school system for students who fall through the cracks. There is always this wonderment of why someone could not learn to read by the time he/she gets to high school. The basic answer is quite simple: The larger the crowd, the easier it is to hide. When education is cut, supplementary services are cut. Even when learning issues are discovered, there could be very few options or tools available to the students, parents and teachers. When class sizes are smaller, it is easier to identify learning issues, and have the time to individually address the situation. Behaviors or attendance issues are dealt with at a faster rate. There is more time for a teacher to communicate with parents. There is nowhere for a student to hide.

Everyone wants to keep his piece of the pie when cuts have to be made. It is up the people and lawmakers to make these decisions. Budget items need to be prioritized. Washington state started this list a long time ago. The citizens and lawmakers understood the necessity of having a well-educated population. So they put it in the state constitution. It is our paramount duty to fund public education.

In the last few years, there has been some movement forward. We need to remain firm in our beliefs and not try and solve the budget problem with what seems to be a quick and easy fix. Education money needs to remain and continually be increased, even in hard economic times.

-- Melissa Metzger, Seattle

Way too late

Children are our most important responsibility. They are the future. The knowledge required for Seattle (and our nation) to thrive in the global economy is already jeopardized by our broken education system.

The two initiatives you recommend suspending (better pay for teachers and reducing class sizes) are too little and very late, but at least they begin to tackle education problems. Our future is worth a lot more than the $1.45 billion you claim can be saved.

Shame on you and shame on us if we continue to relegate children and their education to the "good times." We are surrounded with the results of such "good-time" thinking: rundown school buildings, students who can't pass basic tests, teachers on food stamps and classrooms without text books.

-- Loretta Jancoski, Issaquah

Education is more important

The problems that face our society can never be fixed as long as we continue to value entertainment over education.

Instead of trying to lure another mediocre NBA franchise to Seattle, let's focus our efforts on keeping schools from closing and paying teachers a yearly salary that is more per year than what they owe for student loans.

Instead of shifting the 1 percent hotel tax (which is currently paying off the convention center) to generate $75 million in order to upgrade KeyArena, why don't we shift it to generate $75 million for education?

Or better yet, If Steve Balmer and his apostles of American capitalism really want to do something of value for their local community and region, they should take the $150 million that they have pledged to upgrade KeyArena, and use it to upgrade the educational system. Maybe then they would see some quality returns on their investment in the long run.

It's worth a shot considering we already have a pretty good idea about the kind of returns a middling professional sports franchise yields.

-- Ryan Malone, Duvall

Wave goodbye to three strikes

What an excellent idea in your Sunday, Nov. 23 editorial, suggesting Washington state repeal the three strikes and parole some prisoners convicted under that law ["Legislature, governor must find $5 billion in spending cuts without raising taxes"]. Not only would that save $90,000 per year for each incarcerated person, but would also end unnecessarily harsh sentence guidelines.

The three-strikes law has not been effective in deterring crime. Instead it has landed many nonviolent people who have committed petty thefts in prison for many more years than those committing violent acts. Let's spent a fraction of the incarceration costs on drug counseling and job training.

-- Ruth Yarrow, Seattle

Try to stay afloat

Washington is a proud supporter of labor and the long-standing industries that helped make the state an economic powerhouse. If we weren't, Boeing wouldn't be making airplanes here anymore and our government officials wouldn't have stepped up to keep the majority of the company's airplane construction here.

Given that, it's a shame The Seattle Times would seriously suggest that hundreds of jobs in our shipbuilding industry, which has professionally constructed hundreds of ships and watercraft over the last century, should be sacrificed to supposedly save a buck ["Grab savings in Washington ferry contracts," Editorial, Nov. 24]. This kind of nearsighted thinking threatens our state's future. After all, your newspaper quoted the state Legislature's consultant declaring the costs "reasonable" when all things are taken into account.

The only bid the state received to build two ferries was higher than the ferry system's estimate. That's not surprising, given the unrealistic timeline on which the ferry system insisted, rising costs on other public projects and the mountains of red tape anyone has to wade through to secure a state contract.

There are at least a half dozen shipyards in this state. It should be noted that this was a blind bid in which many shipyards appeared interested at the bidder's conference. Bidders do not know who else is or isn't bidding, so the suggestion that Todd Pacific Shipyards' bid was high due to the lack of other bidders just isn't accurate.

As unemployment rises and our economy becomes more uncertain, we shouldn’t think about throwing away our long-term stability for a short-term gain. If they go, these shipbuilding jobs won't ever come back.

These boats must safely carry millions of people over our waters for a life span of up to 75 years. The decision regarding who builds them should rest on trust and quality, rather than a half-baked notion that we are "saving money" while we push our family-wage jobs elsewhere.

-- Gary Powers, Seattle

Buy local

When considering awarding a contract for building ferry boats, the state of Washington must factor in the taxes paid by in-state workers, as opposed to no revenue from out of state or out of country workers and where those worker wages will be spent.

It is a simple economic loss to have the taxes that in-state wage earners pay go elsewhere. Buying locally is simple economic common sense.

-- Carl Schwartz, Sammamish

Down with outsourcing

It could not possibly be a waste of public money to restrict the bidding to Washington shipbuilders, as their employees will be, for the most part, keeping the money in the state and spending it in Washington businesses.

It would be as wrong to let that work go out of the state as it would be to raise money for schools by installing cigarette machines in junior high school cafeterias.

Keep the money in state; keep the jobs in state. A pure competitive bidding process should be of secondary importance.

-- David Feldman, Vancouver

What's right for Seattle

As we understand it, Todd is the only Washington state company to bid on the new ferry -- a bid that had stringent requirements. You say Todd probably built the late penalties into their bid. However, you fail to take into account that having the ferry construction here in Washington, brings revenue to the local area, giving the local people buying power. This will then increase the state sales tax that Washington needs so desperately now.

Building locally is good for all, and maybe the terms of the contract could be outlined more realistically.
Over the years, Todd has been a good neighbor for all of us in the Puget Sound region.

-- Pauline Anderson, Mountlake Terrace

Not in Washington

I'm getting really tired of the pattern in your lead editorials lately. Where are your values? Where is your pride?

Sure we have an economic downturn, but draconian cuts to education make no sense ["Initiative-backed education initiatives should be suspended in these tough times," Editorial, Nov. 25]. Cutting education is no way to fix the economy.

When the chips are down in your family do you just take the kids out of college? Do you stop feeding the baby? Sell your daughter to the highest bidder? And all in the name of protecting your 401(k) so that you can take that world cruise during your retirement? I think Washington state's values are a little beyond that.

Why is it that if the economy isn't roaring the public should expect "class sizes will balloon" and "teachers will be very unhappy?" And funding for schools "should be considered good-time proposals"?

In this string of "everything-should-be-cut" editorials, the only thing that seems sacred is the pocketbooks of rich business owners.

"No new taxes." That may be the values system of the President George W. Bush Republicans, but it's not part of our values here in Washington.

-- Isabel D'Ambrosia, Seattle

At least maintain

As a senior in high school, I am deep within the process of applying to college and concerned to hear about the large budget cuts our local universities are anticipating ["20 percent cuts may be ahead for colleges, universities as bottom falls out of budget," News, Nov. 23].

A number as high as 20 percent for a budget cut is shocking, and I'm worried to know that our struggling economy has already had such a real, tangible effect on universities that I may one day attend.

I'm also worried about the enrollment cuts threatened by community colleges, as my older brother is currently attempting to transfer to a local community college.

If we can't foster the resources for higher education, we should at least maintain them. Our economy would benefit from improved higher education in the long run, and cutting the budgets and/or enrollment of our universities is shortsighted at best.

-- Lisa Jaech, Seattle

Don't discourage fitness

For a newspaper that endorsed former gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi, I am surprised to see you going after more tax on business, especially yoga studios ["Yoga studios should be taxed like gyms," Editorial, Nov. 24].

Maybe the tax code does need to be cleared up to include professional services like lawyers, accountants, chiropractors, etc. There is a lot more money left on the table than the yoga mat.

With our nation's terrible level of physical fitness and obesity, gyms, yoga and Pilates studios are the last things that should be taxed. Even a tax credit would be a wise investment.

-- Steve Bell, Seattle

More than your average workout

As the owner of a yoga studio, I'm glad that the Washington Department of Revenue does its research better than The Seattle Times. Your statement that anyone who goes to a yoga class will know that it is merely physical exercise shows a lack of discernment.

The editorial board needs to read the number of articles The Times has published on the many benefits of yoga.

Revenue based its decision on two factors: the student's intent and the structure of the class. If the intent is physical exercise and the students simply follow along, then the yoga class is subject to retail sales tax. This type of yoga is generally found in health clubs and gyms. There is no denying that classes such as "abs yoga" are often yoga in name only.

However, yoga studios are more often where students go for instruction in the actual practice of yoga, which involves not only the body but also the breath and mind. The student's intent is to learn to do something that can be taken away from the yoga mat and applied to life. The intent and method of teaching are different. These true yoga classes will be exempt from retail sales tax just like martial-arts instruction.

The Department of Revenue did its research, listened, learned and understood that there is a difference. I commend them for their open-minded and fair approach during times when they are trying to find every possible source of money.

-- Pat Musburger, Shoreline

Get in the spirit

Editor, The Times:

The likelihood that our higher-education system will not escape serious funding reductions should not necessarily result in reductions in enrollment and class offerings ["20% cuts may be ahead for state colleges, universities as bottom falls out of budget," News, Nov. 23]. This may be just the opportunity needed to call about the nascent volunteer spirit in our citizenry that President-elect Barack Obama's election has evoked.

There are likely many former faculty members living near colleges at which they once taught that would, if invited, come back to teach on a part-time, unpaid basis. Although still physically and intellectually active, they've hit the state's mandatory retirement age of 70. They would neither need nor expect a salary since most will have an adequate retirement income. And my guess is that they would enjoy the challenge of re-engaging with students even if for the short-term -- until we work our way out of the financial predicament.

Similarly, there are probably many exceptional people who have retired from professional careers who could be recruited to teach in their disciplines.

Given the increasing demand for classroom seats, the colleges and universities of this state need to maintain an open-door policy. Those filled seats represent the human capital on which the state's future clearly depends.

-- Dick Nelson, Seattle

This won't help

As a senior in high school, I am in the thick of applying to colleges and universities and anxiously awaiting their decisions. Nick Perry's Nov. 23 story about the proposed tuition increases and budget cuts was alarming for me and was cause for concern on a local and national level.

The cuts would lead to fewer faculty and resources, a tuition increase and lower acceptance rates. The combination of an all-time high in enrollment and applications as well as a decrease in funding leads to a truly awful mix.

I was in complete agreement with University of Washington director of state relations, Randy Hodgins, when he was paraphrased saying, "higher-education officials need to explain to the public the opportunities that might be lost should higher education languish."

It is counterproductive to reduce educational opportunities for state residents. This is a national problem. The California state university system faces budget cuts and a need to reduce enrollment by a total of 10,000 students statewide. It will be damaging to close doors on many people's shots at higher education.

-- Emuna David, Seattle

Doing the best they can

I know the frustration of getting to class late due to my bus' lack of punctuality. I also get frustrated when watching bus drivers sit at a bus stop drinking coffee, instead of working ["Bumper to Bumper," News, Nov. 24].

In defense of the Metro system, however, I find it unreasonable to ask for such timeliness from the buses with the inconsistent city streets they have to work with. Unlike systems in other countries that are said to "rarely even be one second late," the Metro-bus system has to put up with day-to-day inconsistencies of Seattle streets such as stop lights, traffic, wheelchair passengers and much more.

I am frustrated with the current system, but do not see a long-term fix coming from more buses crowding the streets, or fewer coffee breaks for drivers. Making "bus-only" lanes or creating a new transportations system altogether would be fixes. I believe Metro deserves nothing but applause and gratitude for the system they have put together with the money and resources available.

-- Martin Merz, Seattle

Road construction won't be enough

As the Highway 520 tolling-implementation committee plans to slap a huge toll on 520 and Interstate 90, I have to ask, what happened to the days when highways were funded 90 percent by the federal government ["520 bridge / 6-lane bridge's cost no easy sell," News, Nov. 21]?

The federal contribution for the 520 bridge is a measly $114 million on a project that will cost at least $4.5 billion, or about 2.5 percent. How did we get here? We pay a federal gas tax of $0.184 cents/per gallon, which goes into the Highway Trust Fund, which was enough to build almost all of the freeways you see.

Now we're told that there is nearly nothing available for big interstate transportation projects like 520 and the Alaskan Way Viaduct. I know a dollar doesn't go as far, but if the Highway Trust Fund isn't being used to fund projects like 520, then what is it good for?

The federal government needs to get its act together and do its part to fund major freeway projects. Mega-construction projects simply cannot be handled on the local level. Tolls are not going to be enough to close the funding gap.

-- Franklin Hu, Seattle

The end begins here

How many levels of government does it take to raze a city?

Decline starts here: Shut down WaMu [Washington Mutual] headquarters and mothball the building. Trash law enforcement and the legal system. Gun owners with legal concealed-carry permits need to stay out.

Transit riders hurting for cash in a recession should pay more. Or, drive in and pay a toll to use the bridges or more to park. Debate the Alaskan Way Viaduct and select the worst, most expensive option and take five to seven years before traffic is normalized. But who will want to go to Seattle, if there is one?

-- William Hofmann, Burien

Simply a waste

I recently received my new vanity license plates, as required by Washington state law, although my old ones were just like new.

The old plates at least had some "class," with the embossed lettering. The new ones are printed on the flat surface, but the cost went up. Despite the price hike for new plates, the cheap quality of the new plates is embarrassing.

I used to be proud to have Washington plates on my car, but this is the last time I'll pay extra for vanity plates.

The law stating that all license plates have to be renewed periodically is a flat-out waste of money for a huge percentage of Washington vehicle owners and creates more clutter on this planet.

I understand this law came about because state troopers wanted it. But they (and the state Legislature) clearly have not considered the consequences, the additional expense and that one of the concepts of the "green movement" is trying to teach people to get over this "throwaway" mentality.

I think a very small percentage of license plates become unreadable in a short period, as claimed by the State Patrol.

Check with any collector of license plates, and they'll tell you most license plates 50 years old are still readable.

-- Hannah Murphy, Toledo

Cut Emmert's pay

Concerning University of Washington President Mark Emmert announcing that he will forgo a raise in his very substantial annual compensation of $905,000, let us consider what could happen if he took a significant pay cut, rather than freezing his salary ["UW, WSU presidents' salaries affected by budget crunch," News, Nov. 21].

Perhaps he will reconsider and instead voluntarily reduce his salary to only $205,000 -- still a substantial level of pay, more than 10 times above the minimum wage. What could be done with the $700,000 saved?

Assuming professors make $70,000, Emmert's pay cut could fund 10 professors. If we assume that a support person makes $40,000 per year, then Emmert's $700,000 pay cut could save 17 positions. And if we consider how many minimum-wage positions could be saved with a $700,000 pay cut, Emmert could save 41 people from the unemployment lines. Even the poverty of a minimum-wage job is better than no job at all.

What will Emmert say to the families affected by the looming layoffs?

-- Jim Thomas, Seattle

Question his priorities
Given the University of Washington's massive budget shortfalls, I'm appalled that UW President Mark Emmert thinks he's doing us a service by waiving an increase in his $905,000 salary.

If you add up the combined amount made by our state's governor, attorney general, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, treasurer, auditor and insurance commissioner, it still doesn't equal Emmert's total. I know that Emmert has raised a lot of money and that his salary and the $700,000 made by his WSU [Washington State University] counterpart Elson Floyd (before a $100,000 voluntary pay cut), are set by the Board of Regents. But given that Emmert's salary equals almost a tenth of the $10 million cuts that will otherwise require laying off professors, turning away students or cutting key services, it's unseemly, to the say the least. If Emmert requires that amount to stay, then I'd question his priorities.

I have a proposal: I'd like to cap Washington state higher-education salaries so that no one makes more than our governor, who currently earns $166,891, and somehow manages to make ends meet.

Given that this couldn't go through instantly, I'd like to challenge Emmert, Floyd and every other employee of our higher-education system who makes more than that amount to donate the excess back, at least for this time of crisis.

Yes, Emmert would have to live on that $166,891 pittance, plus major benefits and $340,000 a year from serving on corporate boards.

Our system's football coaches and senior vice presidents might have to live more modestly as well. But it would make a significant difference in the lives of the faculty, staff and students who'd otherwise be laid off or excluded. And imagine the example it would set in reminding us all that education should be about learning and service, not greed.

-- Paul Loeb, Seattle

King County's getting there

Keith Ervin's story in the Nov. 22 Seattle Times about the King County budget process is a great example of how government should work. My hat goes off to King County Council budget chair Larry Phillips and the budget committee for taking King County Executive Ron Sims' "slash and burn" budget and creating a compromise that recognizes government's responsibility to protect the public interest in circumstances where we cannot protect ourselves.

This budget is still far from perfect but at least there is a glimmer of social responsibility with this relatively modest, responsible expenditure that provides the most basic support for those families and individuals who have nowhere else to turn.

-- Dan Labriola, Seattle

Move it along, Olympia

Finally suggestions to close the $5 billion state budget gap ["Legislature, governor must find $5 billion in spending cuts without raising taxes," editorial, Nov. 23]. I believe one of the biggest failings of any government -- federal, state and local -- is the lack of explaining exactly where and how tax dollars are spent. There never seems to be an annual accounting to the public of how their tax dollars are allocated.

But Sunday's editorial succinctly outlined reasonable options to solve our budget crisis. Although these ideas will be challenged by various constituencies, I hope the Legislature moves forward with these suggestions.

-- Jane Ramsay, Bellevue

School's not just a day care

Your [Sunday editorial on the state budget] revealed the editorial board's collective misunderstanding of modern public education with just two words: "nonteaching days." This was how you justified cutting math and science learning-improvement days to your readers.

Your deliberate parenthetical inclusion of this comment implies that taxpayers get less value for their money when students aren't in the classroom. If you expect day care only, this would be true.

I'm not a science teacher, and I don't know how those days have been used, but your justification for the cuts was poor and uninformed. And unfortunately, you are perpetuating a popular misconception that serves as one of the bigger hurdles in American education.

Many other countries, at least the ones that are the object of our envy because of their public schools, give their teachers significantly more time to meet with parents and students (customer service), grade assignments (performance assessment), collaborate with colleagues (strategic planning) and plan, review and revise curriculum (research and development).

None of this can be done when there are 34 students to supervise in the classroom.

Trying to get students engaged in a lesson is important (sales), but your editorial board should stop feeding the myth that this alone will give us a good product.

-- Stephen Nolet, Suquamish

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

Penalty for nonsense

The Bob Condotta and Bud Withers story about Husky and Cougar stadium fundraising, combined with the nice Rich Boudet illustration, represents a good start in the discussion ["Banking on wins, losing on losses," Sports, Nov. 21].

But it would be more appropriate if the Husky purple piggy bank shown in the illustration had $150 million sticking out of it, since this is the amount the University of Washington wants in tax dollars for their stadium. And the small pile of Cougar coins should be in a tin cup, since it is clear that the Cougars are getting pressure from UW not to disrupt the Husky tax-dollar stadium-funding plan.

It is ironic that, during a recession, the Pac-10 Cougars are planning to pay for their stadium improvements through alumni and student support, with no tax dollars, while during the same recession, the Pac-10 Huskies, with a $2.6 billion endowment, and the highest-paid university president in the U.S., are asking the state Legislature to pay for their stadium.

Someone needs to call a penalty on this nonsense.

-- Mark Ufkes, White Center

Open wide for the public

I wish to wholeheartedly commend The Seattle Times for your editorial Sunday, "Change Washington law to open government."

Last Wednesday the Public Records Accountability Executive Committee voted 7-3 urging the Legislature to pass legislation to open up our state government secrets to public scrutiny.

In 1971, the Open Government Act became law. There were originally only 10 exemptions from this act. Since then, more than 300 have been tacked on, making the act useless.

Three amazing Washington state Supreme Court decisions on the public's right to know and the initiative process stager the imagination of a circus clown. They have slammed the door shut on the public's right to know and the initiative process.

In Hangartner v. City of Seattle, the court stupidly said that government agencies can claim attorney-client privilege even when there is no threat of litigation. In declaring Tim Eyman's Initiative 247 unconstitutional, the court held that voters didn't know what they were doing when they overwhelmingly supported the initiative.

If you can forget that the court only decides question of law and this was a question of fact, one starts to get dizzy with the anti-democratic direction the court is taking. They are out there with Buck Rogers in the 25th century.

No one knows when the court will land on solid legal ground, but it sure will be one heck of a train wreck when it does.

-- Harry Foster, Freeland

No wonder

As a taxpayer in the state of Washington and as an American who was understands higher education from both a public- and private-system perspective in this state, I am outraged, appalled and disappointed with the news that the chief administrators of the University of Washington and Washington State University are being paid six- and seven-figure compensatory salaries ["Emmert, Elson earn their pay," editorial, Nov. 18].

The front-page story indicating a "$ 600 million cutback" systemwide only exacerbates with highlight this grievous situation ["Higher ed prepares to cut $600 million," Nov. 19].

Why are public tax dollars authorized to pay public employees compensation on this scale? This is wrong and should cause every citizen in this state to sit up and take notice. I fail to see how a college or university president deserves this kind of money, in comparison with the city manager of Tacoma, for example, who is responsible for a population center of over 200,000 thousand with an annual salary of about $180,000.

In the prevailing economic crisis both statewide and nationally, it is clear that there are people and agencies who need to be replaced. The State Board for Higher Education should be held accountable, including the Legislature and governor, for support of these perks at the expense of each and every citizen. No wonder we are in a mess.

There are educators, students, staff and citizens of this state who will be required to sacrifice again and regardless of other contributing circumstances in our local and national economy, these "private-sector salaries" aren't helping the situation. It seems to reflect the greed and excessive nature of the market.

The argument that we need to pay this scale of salary to attract "qualified leaders" is nothing more than fluff and nonsense. There are people more than qualified to lead our state institutions of higher learning who don't require or could even accept this unjustified payment for services rendered.

I trust someone might investigate further into the process by which taxpayer dollars are used to underwrite such a travesty, when so many folks are suffering and can't even make it with two incomes, much less one.

-- Troy Jella, Seattle

We can't afford this

Do the people of Washington state need to pay nearly $1 million annually to retain great people to lead our universities? Of course not.

A truly great leader would not extort an exorbitant salary from the citizenry -- a real leader would accept a decent salary sufficient to support his or her family as a supplement to the great opportunity to lead.

Let's drop the notion that public institutions need to pay extortionate salaries "to compete with the private sector." We can't afford this foolishness any longer. And we don't need leaders who think they should earn a fortune on the backs of the people.

-- Greg Bartholomew, Seattle

Cut something else

The governor's budget-advisory panel has released recommended budget cuts this week. Those cuts propose eliminating community networks that operate under the guidance of the Family Policy Council.
Community networks exist throughout the state, were put into place by citizen vote, and function as the organizing entity for citizens to come together at the local level to reduce problem behaviors such as child abuse, youth suicide, violence and drug abuse.

Networks leverage funds and nearly countless volunteer hours for their communities. To eliminate such a program during this period of economic stress is foolish. Cutting the networks tells citizens they are not welcome at the governor's table. Gov. Christine Gregoire needs to ignore her panel on this one.

-- Rochelle Riling, Okanogan

More campaign rhetoric?

Under threat of the slowing economy, Gov. Christine Gregoire may be reassessing her earlier pledge to implement and fund a health-care program for small businesses called the Health Insurance Partnership [HIP]. The program essentially uses employee, employer and state funds to provide workers in small businesses with "Basic Health"-type coverage using a sliding scale.

Now, with growing uncertainty about the state's economy in the months ahead, there is talk that the money may no longer be available to implement the plan.

To even contemplate cutting it suggests that the program is not fully appreciated for how it would aid the state in weathering any economic storms that lay ahead. With a growing number of national businesses announcing large layoffs, it seems a clear priority to ensure the health of our state's economic backbone -- its small businesses.

Providing fair and affordable health care to our small businesses is one way to help inoculate this critical segment of our economy against a potential economic downturn, and would benefit the state budget in several ways: Lower health-care costs allow small businesses to retain more workers who can then continue to contribute to the state as taxpayers, rather than becoming unemployed recipients of government assistance; reduced health-care costs also reduce expenses and enable more businesses to remain in operation, providing employment and revenue for the state.

Then too, fewer workers without health care (who can't afford it) means fewer days lost to illness -- another savings to employers and the state. And we all know who picks up the bill for sick workers who show up at the hospital without insurance -- the state, and at a much-inflated price tab.

Unlike the federal Wall Street bailouts that paid for annual bonuses and golf junkets, the modest funding of the HIP program will pay dividends benefiting all of Washington.

-- Todd Putnam, Seattle

Have you no compassion?

Do you think the voters are stupid? Nearly 75 percent endorsed Initiative 1029 because they know that better training of home-care workers means better care for their loved ones ["Initiative 1029: Compassion leads to faulty results," editorial, Nov. 6].

You had a clearly-stated opinion of opposition to the initiative before the election. The voters guide presented both sides of the issue. The people didn't buy your arguments.

Your fixation on SEIU [Service Employees International Union] has clouded your judgment. Look at the long list of supporters of 1029. This initiative had broad support throughout the state from people and organizations who understand the long-term-care system in the state and the need to have a well-trained work force to sustain quality of care.

-- Nancy Dapper, Seattle

We wanted to know the issues

What an utterly tone-deaf analysis by State Attorney General Rob McKenna as to why Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi was defeated ["State GOP confident despite loss," Politics, Nov. 9]. I voted for McKenna but will not make that mistake again.

McKenna thinks Rossi ran a "very good campaign." There was nothing he could have done differently and the loss was due to a "tough external environment." How did that environment affect McKenna? He won by nearly 20 points.

I'd suggest McKenna turn to page B10 of the same day's paper and read Joni Balter's excellent piece ["Positive lessons from negative ads," editorial columnist, Nov. 9]. Like the man at the top of the GOP ticket, Sen. John McCain, Rossi ran a gimmicky, very negative campaign that lacked seriousness, in a very serious time.

Like McCain's Joe the plumber, Rossi had the baby in stinky diapers. Instead of specific proposals, we heard about McCain's heroism 40 years ago and Rossi's budget work five years ago. They never told me why I should vote for them. Certainly, Obama and Gov. Christine Gregoire threw plenty of mud, though nothing at the level of Rossi and McCain.

I think after the past eight years of federal bungling, voters are looking for politicians who display competence, even in their campaign. That is why I voted for Obama, Gregoire and McKenna. That last vote I'll not repeat.

-- John Whittaker, Vashon Island

The death of the Republican Party

Does this stuff remind anyone of the blindness of the Federalists or the Whigs ["GOP split on how to retool message," Politics & Government, Nov. 9] Political parties come and go. In the modern era parties don't evolve from pure ideas; they evolve out of fragments or factions of parties that either collapsed or splintered. Some of the ideas of the Federalists (strong federal government, as opposed to strong state governments) found their way into the Federal Democrats, and some of their ideas (aristocratic leadership) were completely discredited by the egalitarianism of the Jacksonian era. The Whigs faded when their ideas no longer appealed to Americans who had already accepted the ideas of the Democratic Party (the need for a national bank and the need for open markets, among others) and the Whig Party was seen as too distant from the passions of what became the dominant political conflict of the mid-19th century in America: slavery and states' rights against intensifying abolitionist sentiment, containment of slavery in the deep south and an increasing role for the federal government in the life of the nation.

Doesn't what we have seen of persistent Republican focus on social mechanisms of oppression and a growing demonization of science remind you of the blindness that led to the demise of the Federalists and the Whigs? James Rosen's story exemplifies what I've thought for some time, that if we are to make our way into the future as a viable nation we must stop fighting yesterday's social wars. And that does not mean surrender to the social conservatives.

Is the center of American politics finally tiring of those wars? Are they giving up on Republicanism and moving on? Will the center grow at the expense of a shrinking, increasingly reactionary Republican Party, and will that center end up breaking away, formally, to form a new party, taking with it the viable ideas of traditional conservatism and leaving behind a perpetually disgruntled rump that is enlivened only by a discredited social conservatism that has showed itself capable of oppression but incapable of governing?

One can only hope.

-- Bill McCauley, Auburn

Mark Harrison / The Seattle Times

High-school bands join the University of Washington band to practice for the halftime show on band day at Husky Stadium.

This could work

Editor, The Times:

UW [University of Washington] Regents recently announced approval for predevelopment expenses to renovate Husky Stadium ["Predevelopment of Husky Stadium plans approved," Sports, Oct. 16]. As an alumnus of UW as well as a football season-ticket holder, I would like to lay out a plan for the fans to pay $75 million of the renovation through issuance by the University of municipal revenue bonds.

This proposal would reduce the amount of funds the university would request from the state and allow the process to move forward. The university could issue the principal $75 million of 30-year municipal revenue bonds.

Interest would be paid by a $10 levy on each ticket sold to season-ticket holders as well as single-game tickets, with the levy on a graduated scale over the 30 years. Starting in 2010, based on average attendance this levy would cover the annual interest payments.

This levy rate would also create an annual excess in revenue collected that would go into a trust managed by the school. This trust would grow in excess of $75 million and pay off the principal of the bonds in year 30.

However, this trust would serve as its own insurance fund for the bonds, if attendance rates were to fall and thus the levy rate didn't cover the interest. This trust would serve as a subordinate tranche to cover annual interest shortfalls until attendance once again reached levels sufficient to cover annual payments.

As a season-ticket holder and fan who desperately wants the stadium renovated, I would be more than willing to do my part to pay for the renovation -- both through the levy as well as individually purchasing a portion of the bond issuance.

-- Jamie Cobb, Mill Creek

So right, yet so wrong

Kudos to you on your recent endorsements. I totally agree with the endorsements of Sam Reed and Rob McKenna as they have a track of proven records year after year ["Rob McKenna for attorney general," editorial, Oct. 21; "Sam Reed should be re-elected," editorial, Oct. 20]. They have been very effective in their respective positions through their high level of integrity and community relations.

In terms of The Times' endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi, it seems to be too biased and far-fetched to digest ["Rossi for governor," editorial, Oct. 19].

Rossi has been in oblivion since 2004 election and resurfaced very recently by his BIAW [Business Industry Association of Washington] allies and the leaderless state Republican Party touting his past glory as the state senator.

It is surprising that a premium newspaper like The Seattle Times overlooked his inexperience, ignorance and insincerity, which have been very clearly reflected in all his recent debates with Gov. Christine Gregoire.

His views on global warming are the latest example of his lack of knowledge and adaptability to changes and modern-day living for a greener world.

Just two days after being endorsed by your paper, he realized the severity of economic crisis on a national level and suggested that if elected he would have to postpone many of his key programs. This reflects his lack of self confidence.

-- Debu Dash, Seattle

Family planning depends on
choosing the right governor

Those who support gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi for governor identify his fiscal conservatism as a key asset. Yet, Rossi's proposed tax cuts and road-building plan would more than double the projected $3.2 billion state-budget deficit. Only this week did he finally acknowledge such promises were untenable.

Meanwhile, in focusing so narrowly on Rossi's fiscal policies, voters are overlooking his extreme views on social issues. As a state senator, he voted against requiring drug-insurance plans to cover contraceptives.

He pushed to fund an abstinence-only sex-education program while voting against funding for low-income family-planning services. And he favors allowing pharmacists to refuse to sell FDA [Federal Drug Administration]-approved emergency contraception.

Unlike Rossi, Gov. Christine Gregoire recognizes the importance of a good family-planning policy.

Family planning reduces teen pregnancy, prevents abortions and lets people decide when and whether to have children. Gregoire has worked to provide age-appropriate, medically accurate information to students and funding for family-planning services to low-income families, services like those offered by Planned Parenthood.

Gregoire supports rules that require pharmacies to dispense emergency contraception. We need a forward-thinking governor, not one like Rossi with his regressive health-care policies.

-- Rejean Idzerda, Lake Forest Park

Correct your bias
in lieutenant governor's race

I was appalled by the blatant conservative bias in your profile of the lieutenant governor race this Sunday ["Quietly vying for the No. 2 spot," News, Oct. 26]. You gave ample description of Republican candidate Marcia McCraw's background, qualifications and motivations for running for the office. You even took the liberty of letting her describe herself as highly organized.

Glancing over her associations with the father of dial-a-porn, and her DUI [Driving Under the Influence], you spent lavish space instead on her divorce and her skimpy resume.

On the other hand, you skewered current Lt. Gov. Brad Owen, devoting paragraph after paragraph to inflated controversies, the most recent from 10 years ago. You gave no mention to his long career in the Senate or the fact that he is the longest-serving current lieutenant governor. You went as far as to survey the marijuana lobby on his anti-drug focus, which can hardly be called fair reporting.

As a sophomore in high school, I am proud of the work that our lieutenant governor has done to get the anti-drug message out to students. He makes it fun and engaging for students. I am extremely disappointed in The Times' bias and hope that it is corrected in the future.

-- Tucker Cholvin, Snohomish

Bellevue parks levy
not the top priority

I love Bellevue and how well-kept it is. It is always a joy to spend time walking through the streets and parks around there.

What I don't understand is how they can even be thinking about spending so much money on buying land and creating more parks when our economy is in such a questionable state ["Bellevue Parks, Yes!," editorial, Oct. 10].

Instead of focusing on beautifying Bellevue, it seems like it would be much more of a priority to make sure that the city is doing well economically.

Just the other day The Seattle Times was talking about how Bellevue has had to stop many building projects because of the economic crisis, and now here we are again, spending money that could be used more wisely.

It's not that I do not enjoy the new parks; it's just that there are so many more important projects that we could be putting our money into, especially in this critical time.

-- Erin Oostra, Mill Creek

Be progressive

Thanks for Andrew Garber's story comparing Gov. Christine Gregoire and gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi on the environment ["Where Gregoire, Rossi stand on environmental issues," page one, Oct. 22].

Rossi implies that Gregoire's actions have been costly economically. In fact, she has led on a range of programs that will help, not hurt, pocketbooks. She passed the clean-car bill, which will save drivers at the gas pump; she signed generous tax incentives to help consumers pay for solar power; she passed high-efficiency standards that lower electric bills.

By encouraging solar and wind energy in Washington, she fostered new industries and jobs. By diversifying our energy sources, we are buffered from fluctuations in gas and coal markets. She prioritizes education and training for green jobs.

Rossi offers nothing to help working people while fighting climate change or dealing with traffic. His transportation plan would fail to relieve congestion, reduce pollution and provides no alternatives. It would keep us dependent on dirty and expensive oil for generations to come.

This state also uses a lot of coal power for electricity and might need to rely more on fossil fuels as we grow if we don't act now. He ignores energy efficiency -- the cheapest, quickest source of energy, which can lower energy bills while employing thousands of new workers.

Comprehensive programs and proper planning will help this state create jobs and prevent the worst of the climate crisis.

Rossi has voted against studying, planning for or taking action on climate change, which is a shortsighted, expensive point of view that would hurt Washington.

-- Kathleen Ridihalgh, Seattle

A growing force

In a recent Seattle Times story, columnist Jerry Large cites revealing statistics from a recent study that breaks down the complex political demographic within the Asian and Pacific Islander community ["Growing clout of Asian Americans," Local News, Oct. 13].

Large offers some advice for campaign strategists about the Asian-American community, which is one of the fastest-growing groups to potentially affect the outcome of the presidential campaign in several swing states. APIAs [Asian Pacific Islanders] have clout and are a growing force in the land of politics.

While some politicians have yet to fully realize the political strength of APIAs, Gov. Christine Gregoire has always acknowledged the contributions of our community. Since elected as governor, Gregoire has worked with us in the APIA community to make sure that all residents in Washington have access to quality and accessible health care by reducing language and cultural barriers so that individuals and their families, especially our elders can navigate the health-care system.

Gregoire recognizes that Asian Americans are not comprised of one lump ethnicity, but that we are made up of various and distinct groups.

As governor, Gregoire recognizes that the APIA community faces challenges with our K-12 and higher-education system. That is why Gregoire has been an outspoken leader in addressing student-achievement gaps, ensuring that education research includes the disaggregation of student data, attending to the needs of English-language-learning students and increasing financial support to give more APIA students access to college.

APIA voters are not only poised to play a pivotal role but take part in potentially deciding who wins in this gubernatorial race.

Gregoire understands that APIAs are diverse with varied views and she is effective in reaching out to our community.

Now is the time to assert our political force and deliver the APIA vote to victory for Gregoire.

-- Livia Lam, Seattle

Political guts
The Seattle Times hit the nail on the head by endorsing gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi for being a tough budgeter and being able to sell a lean, smart budget. ["Rossi for governor," editorial, Oct. 17.]

Right now the biggest issue facing our state, just like the rest of the country, is the economic crisis. We are now in a recession and as a sales-tax-dependent state, we are going to be greatly impacted by these tough economic times.

That's why we need somebody in Olympia with a red pen who will stand up to the Legislature and unions. Rossi has political guts, and that's exactly what we need to bring balance to Olympia.

Difficult times brings the need for solid leadership. This newspaper chronicled the work of Rossi during the tough times of 2003. What he did there was nothing short of amazing. It's time to give him the promotion to governor.

-- Sharon Sweo, Bellevue

Be consistent

Gov. Christine Gregoire has done a very good job as governor. She has been nationally recognized as heading one of the best-run state governments in the country.

I also believe there is an undervalued additional reason to vote for her. It seems very likely that we will have not only a Democratic national government, but one tasked with rebuilding a nearly destroyed national economy.

We need to have leadership that coordinates with the new Democratic national leadership and policies, which will include stimulus for infrastructure and investment in jobs in a new alternative-energy economy.

We have innovators at University of Washington who are potential national leaders in these areas. They will have the chance to shine when governed by Gregoire, who has already earned national recognition for leadership and knowledge both about economic potentials in leadership around climate change and energy-independence technologies. We need the political will to capitalize on a time for great potential.

Gregoire would be an influential partner with the national agenda for change. Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi would claim he could be, but lacks both the right philosophy and the influence to help Washington state.

In times where a major response is needed to huge economic challenges, we need our state to team up with the national leadership.

If you vote for Barack Obama, it makes great economic sense for our state to vote for Gregoire.

-- Kathryn Munson, Seattle

Don't fall for magic tax mathematics

I'm voting for Gov. Christine Gregoire despite your predictable endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi and Gregoire's disappointing campaign.

Both your editorial and much of Gregoire's advertising ignore her enviable list of accomplishments, ranging from early-childhood-education initiatives to Puget Sound cleanup. You also overlook Rossi's impossible promises (an eight-lane alternative for less than the proposed six-lane Highway 520 bridge replacement), just as you ignored Gregoire's fiscally responsible opposition to Mayor Greg Nickels' insanely expensive Seattle-tunnel proposal.

Although I wish Gregoire had focused more on her brilliant first-term record in this campaign, I can understand Gregoire's impatience with Rossi's magic tax mathematics. I just hope your own tax myopia doesn't condemn Washington state to four years of our own version of President George W. Bush.

-- Peter Holmes, Seattle

Be informed

Thank you for "Attack ads distort deal Gregoire rejected on Casinos," [News, Oct. 19], which I have read and reread out of a wish to be a well-informed voter. I appreciate this comprehensive reporting since gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi's campaign has made this issue prominent.

What's especially helpful is learning that there was widespread bipartisan support for rejecting revenue sharing with the tribes. Call me naive, but I have to admit dismay to learn that Gov. Christine Gregoire's management of this matter has been distorted for political ends. The way this issue has diverted attention from relevant issues also dismays me.

Accepting distortions in campaigns undermines the quality of our civic life. I hope voters will take the time to get informed and reject what is false and misleading not only in this matter but in all matters related to the election. I hope your newspaper and other sources will continue to aid voters who responsibly search out the facts. If we voters do our homework, maybe someday campaigners will give up distorting the truth.

Wouldn't that be something?

-- Constance Voget, Seattle

Hand in hand

Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi does not believe climate change is real -- just like the BIAW [Business Industry Association of Washington]. You cannot be a leader on climate change if you don't believe the problem is real ["Clashing views on climate change," page one, Oct. 22].

Rossi believes building roads is the answer -- just like the BIAW. Every objective evaluator of his transportation plan has labeled it a farce that is neither economically viable nor physically possible.

Rossi voted against the environment two-thirds of the time, just like he votes with the BIAW 99 percent of the time.

What do you think he will do as governor: protect the environment or follow the right-wing anti-environment group that is paying $7 million to buy the election?

Groups like Washington Conservation Voters don't just endorse Democrats, they endorse champions for our environmental protection, regardless of party affiliation. An environmental champion is an elected official who understands that protecting our quality of life and improving our economy go hand-in-hand.

--Ken Lederman, Seattle

Who's your daddy?

The Building Industry Association of Washington [BIAW] has now pumped $7 million into gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi's election campaign, with $4 million of that coming this past week ["Rossi's biggest backer explains what it wants," Times, page one, Oct. 17]. What's going on here? Who is Rossi going to be beholden to if he is elected?

It doesn't seem like he'll be terribly responsive to the people, or the real needs of Washington, when his sugar daddy is BIAW.

-- Bruce Barnbaum, Granite Falls

Don't ruin what's been started

A big issue for me is that gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi is anti-choice and anti-birth control.

Population control is extremely crucial for the preservation of our fragile environment. With more people becoming homeless, the risk of unwanted pregnancies increases. We've made a lot of progress since the days of [American birth-control activist] Margaret Sanger. Let's not go back to those days by voting for Rossi.

-- Kim Loftness, Shoreline

He'll build a fish bowl

Gov. Christine Gregoire has been a plucky, well-organized and effective governor, despite her hairbreadth win four years ago, which would have made a lesser person timid.

What has gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi actually done that is positive for our state? What would he do during our next four years? Chop social services, promote his personal extreme-right-wingnut social agenda, and push that absurdly expensive Seattle-waterfront traffic tunnel that would fill up with saltwater as our planet warms up and Puget Sound rises.

-- Chuck Hastings, Federal Way

She added before subtracting

The announcement Tuesday that our state's jobless rate has dropped in the month of September is proof Gov. Christine Gregoire has led our state effectively during tough economic times.

Our state has added more than 28,000 nonfarm jobs in the past 12 months, an increase of 1 percent in the face of a nationwide decrease of 0.7 percent.

The jobless rate in Washington is 0.3 percent lower than the jobless rate nationwide. These numbers clearly show our state's economy is faring better than the rest of the nation.

Gregoire has been a good steward of our state's economy during a national economic crisis, but gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi and his friends continue to air false and misleading ads that exploit the fear and uncertainty of these tough times.

In one ad they say Gregoire has lost our state 55,700 jobs, but it fails to mention she has added 250,000. In another ad, they cite scary-sounding unemployment figures, but fail to mention our jobless rate is below the national average.

The truth is, Gregoire has served us well. In the middle of this national economic crisis, our state's economy is much stronger than most other states.

-- Fay Feganm, Seattle

Where's my laxative?

It was remarkable to learn today that laxative sales go up during a recession "because people are under tremendous stress, and holding themselves back" ["As economy sinks, laxative sales grow, smoking drops," Nation & World, Oct. 19]. That explains the sudden clenching I felt when I read The Times' endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi for governor ["Rossi for governor," Times, editorial, Oct. 19].

Remembering that The Times endorsed President George W. Bush in 2000, I searched The Times' archives and found the following summary statement: "We [The Times] recommend [George W. Bush, Republican, for President] for integrity and civility in office, for a realistic balance between government and commerce, a fair tax policy, and a new, bipartisan era to confront the needs of the nation".

I urge the editors to raise their hands, say, "Oops, my bad" and reconsider their current endorsement.
Rossi's record, grossly negative campaign, questionable fundraising and religious fundamentalism all bear the stench of a Republican brand that has proved itself politically and morally bankrupt (and has rendered many Americans financially bankrupt).

Endorsing Rossi "because he can best be trusted to erase the state's huge projected deficit without raising taxes" reads like your above endorsement for Bush in 2000, especially the part about "a fair tax policy."

Please, don't be fooled again.

-- Ed Leach, Seattle

Keepin' it green

As Puget Sound teeters on the brink of collapse, your endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi is nothing short of appalling.

Sure, Rossi says he's green, but he opposes taking the decisive action needed; that's why he's the darling of the BIAW [Building Industry Association of Washington].

Here's an example of what we could expect from a Rossi administration. Back in 2006, Rossi backed Initiative 933 -- an anti-environment, anti-neighborhood measure to force taxpayers to compensate developers who saw their profit margins "damaged" by environmental rules. I-933 was so bad that Gov. Christine Gregoire, all six living former governors and nearly every city council in the state opposed it. So did The Seattle Times, calling it "an expensive hoax on property owners and taxpayers." Mercifully, voters defeated it by about 60-40 percent across the state (and about 67-33 percent in King County.)

It's no coincidence that I-933 was funded by groups now dumping buckets of money into Rossi's campaign, including the BIAW. According to your Oct. 17 story, BIAW PACs [political-action committees] are spending upward of $6 million to elect Rossi and others who would ax environmental protection measures

Let's keep Washington green with Gov. Gregoire.

-- Elsa Bruton, Olympia

You still at work?
When I read The Times' endorsement for gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi for governor, I hoped I would find cogent and convincing reasons to vote for him. Instead, I found myself reading the same stuff that the Rossi campaign has been putting out all year.

What happened?

Did the editorial staff take the day off and have Rossi write his own endorsement?

-- Mark Hudson, Seattle

You fell for it
I am writing to express my disappointment with The Times' endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi for governor. While you are certainly free to support any candidate of your choice, your failure to fully represent Rossi's views in your endorsement do a disservice to your readers and to the citizens of our state.

Your editorial focused entirely on Rossi's proposed economic agenda, and neglected to address his regressive social positions. While I agree that the state's economic woes are of high importance, our next governor will also set the tone for a social agenda of equal magnitude.

Rossi's arch-conservative views include: siding with big business at the expense of our environment, decreasing protections for wildlife and wilderness areas, seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade and restricting access to contraception and medically accurate sex-education information in schools.

He promises to veto marriage-equality legislation should the Legislature approve it, and to roll back the hard-won civil-union rights that gay and lesbian citizens have just recently attained.

The Rossi campaign has cleverly managed to divert attention during election season from his social views.
By ignoring these issues in your endorsement of his candidacy, you've allowed this dishonest campaign strategy to achieve its purpose.

-- Jeff Natter, Seattle

He will take us down
I am a teacher in the Seattle Public Schools. I've taught for 30 years. I am writing to spread the word about gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi. He will take us back to the days when he was in control of the budget and cut the education budget by $1.2 billion. His current campaign calls for huge increases in the transportation budget with no new sources of revenue.

That means he would cut education again.

This state cannot afford to have a governor who sacrifices our children's futures. We need an educated work force to meet the needs of the state's future work force. Washington cannot afford Rossi.

-- Joanie Mass, Seattle

We're on a road to nowhere
I was quite dismayed to see that your editorial board has endorsed gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi, as he simply is not qualified. People who vote for him will be voting against their own interests and will be backing big business. Didn't we have enough of that trickle-down theory on the national level these past eight years? We do not need that here in Washington state.

The basis of your endorsement is that he will deal with our state deficit without raising taxes. That is a Republican manner of looking at a financial situation. Look where that has gotten our country.

Taxes not raised on a state level are simply made up by increased homeowner and sales taxes elsewhere. Thinking we do not all need to pay for our fair share of the infrastructures and services is silly.

No matter how "likable" Rossi appears to be, he's a lacky of big business and I for one have had more than enough of that these last eight years.

-- Matt Shaw, Seattle

Let her keep tackling
As Island County Commissioner, I often worked with Gov. Christine Gregoire when she was director of the state Department of Ecology. She did not hesitate to take on the toughest problems facing people of this good state.

Two of the more contentious were water and water rights and Puget Sound water quality. She brought all the players and interested parties together and got them to talk and consider solutions until an agreement could be made. Feelings often overflowed into the discussions but she never wavered in her determination to find an equitable solution. Her leadership and sharp intellect served us all well.

These qualities were shown again when, as our attorney general, she successfully concluded negotiations with the tobacco industry that netted billions from the U.S. I recall saying to the executive director of the Washington State Association of Counties that I thought she was doing a really good job. He countered that "She is the best attorney general we have ever had." And I, too, came to believe that to be true.

As governor she has brought that same leadership and incisive thinking to the highest office in our state. She has tackled the tough jobs and served the people well. I will be proud to vote for her to be returned for a second term.

-- Dwain Colby, Camano Island

No more equal rights

I was crushed, but not surprised, that Dino Rossi won the endorsement of The Seattle Times. I am willing to concede that he could do a good job with the budget, though Gov. Christine Gregoire has proved that she can be tough as well.

I recall it was under her watch that a large deficit was erased. But socially, Rossi does not represent the majority of this state. He has said that he would consider proactively rescinding the domestic-partnership law. He even refused to address the constituency at a gay and lesbian community business meeting.

If he didn't support equal rights based on race or gender I suspect that The Seattle Times would write him off in a nanosecond, regardless of his other positions. It just proves that gay and lesbian people can still be publicly maligned without penalty. The support of the editorial board of Rossi without qualification makes them complicit with Rossi's views.

The editorial mentioned other reasons to vote for Rossi besides the budget issues, but the idea was basically change for change's sake.

I hardly think that changing from Gregoire is analogous to the change from President George W. Bush. I think there are many other reasons to vote for Gregoire, such as education, industry support, minimum wage and the environment.

But The Seattle Times is completely myopic in their approach. Perhaps the editorial should have mentioned some concerns as well.

-- John Sutherland, Seattle

She's doing it better
In your endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi, you claim that "when he says he'll cut spending, you can believe him." I strongly disagree.

I find it hard to believe anything Rossi has said in this campaign. He hasn't provided one substantive proposal to tackle any of the state's problems, and when it comes to cutting spending, Rossi refuses to pinpoint a single item he would cut. He just says, "I'll balance the budget without raising taxes."

That's an attractive promise to make, but no one should believe him until he explains exactly how he would do it.

Gov. Christine Gregoire has already started to cut spending and has also vowed not to raise taxes.
To save $90 million, Gregoire has ordered state agencies to implement a hiring freeze and to eliminate nonemergency out-of-state travel, equipment purchases and services contracts. In addition, she just announced another $240 million in immediate budget savings.

Combined with the money saved in the rainy-day fund Gregoire created, these actions alone will cut the projected budget deficit in half.

When it comes to balancing the budget, Gregoire is the only candidate we should trust.

-- Alex Hart, Seattle

Jim Bates/The Seattle Times

Dino Rossi speaks during the final gubernatorial debate at Seattle's KING 5 studio Oct. 15.

Thanks, but no thanks
Editor, The Times:

Perhaps your conservative philosophy influences your candidate endorsements ["Rossi for governor," Times, editorial, Oct. 19].

During the recent gubernatorial debate I was impressed with Gov. Christine Gregoire's accomplishments. The Pew Center ranked Washington in the top three states for managing public resources, and Forbes magazine states that Washington is in the top five states for business.

During the debate, gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi repeatedly stated that he had developed the 2003 state budget. The Seattle Times echoes his claim and suggests that, "The Rossi-Locke budget saved the people from increases in major taxes and helped unleash a strong economic rebound."

I might remind you that "no new taxes" is also the philosophy of President George W. Bush's administration which has created the worst recession in the history of our nation. Perhaps the relationship between no-new-taxes and economic rebound is tenuous at best.

Change has been the campaign slogan for both Sen. Barack Obama and Rossi. Obama would like to change the conservative Bush philosophy, and an ever-increasing majority of the country's electorate seems to agree. But Washington state is top-ranked when it comes to management and business. Yet Rossi and The Seattle Times claim "he would bring change to … Olympia."

Thanks, but no thanks.

-- Bill Taylor, Renton

Who is vulnerable?
The 2003 Washington state budget that you praise gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi for balancing, cut thousands of low-income children off Children's Health Insurance. Rossi has yet to tell us which "vulnerable populations" he would protect.

Rossi supports allowing pharmacists not to fill prescriptions they disagree with. While Plan B [emergency contraception] may be the most obvious casualty, what happens if a pharmacist disagrees with the way I manage my pain from advanced cancer and will not give me the pain meds I need to function?

Rossi's transportation plan would be a disaster, especially for anyone who lives near the Highway 520 bridge.

As I understand it, Rossi's supporters want to get rid of building regulations, which would mean dirtier streams and probably more loss of natural marsh and swamplands.

While I don't always agree with Gov. Christine Gregoire, she has been and will be a better governor than Rossi will ever be.

-- Jean Colman, Seattle

Unpleasant morning
I received an unpleasant jolt when I opened Sunday's Opinion section and discovered that The Times endorsed Dino Rossi for governor. Apparently the editorial board has bought into his TV commercials offering "change."

If Rossi can be relied on to cut spending by "about 10 percent," as The Times claims is necessary, where will these cuts be made? History shows that when Republicans cut spending, social programs usually fall victim (think Ronald Reagan.) Cutting social programs during terrible economic times will lead to greater problems in the long run.

The Times complained about Gov. Christine Gregoire's increased spending. Where did she spend more? On teachers and home-care workers. This is not a waste of money; it is money well spent.

As a 17-year-old public-school student, I believe my teachers deserve higher pay. The Times said people can believe Rossi. Until he offers specific solutions rather than smarmy attacks, I can't.

-- Cassandra Baker, Seattle

Move forward
Only one day after The Seattle Times reported on the BIAW's [Building Industry Association of Washington's] scandalous multimillion dollar expenditures on his behalf, the newspaper endorsed gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi for governor. BIAW's efforts are blatantly aimed at eliminating regulations protecting the environment.

Gov. Christine Gregoire has shown remarkable leadership and vision on many issues, including investing in our economy and environment for future generations.

Gregoire strongly supports the creation of green jobs and industry in this state, a position that Sen. Barack Obama has made a cornerstone of his economic platform.

Gregoire created the Puget Sound Partnership to save our life-sustaining inland sea, which is beginning to die from the impact of unregulated development.

Gregoire began a program to fight climate change. Washington state's hundreds of miles of coastline and glacier-fed water sources will be especially hard hit.

Rossi shows little interest in addressing these issues. Like many politicians, he professes to care about the environment. However, his platform calls for the weakening of environmental rules and road building in preference to mass transit.

Washingtonians should expect Gregoire's vital and innovative "green" programs to wither under his administration.

The Times recently endorsed Obama saying, "He can get America moving forward again." The re-election of Gregoire is essential to making that a reality for Washington state.

-- E. L. Johnson, Olympia

Remove your head from the sand
The Seattle Times decided to endorse gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi for governor this week, partially based on the fact that the Democrats have been in power for 24 years. It is unfortunate that The Seattle Times is endorsing a candidate who has lied about his stance on education. His children attend private school despite living in a district that has excellent public schooling. As state senator, he wanted to lower state spending despite the clear funding criteria set out in the state constitution to fully fund education.
Rossi refuses to testify in a case that he claims is politically motivated. This sounds vaguely familiar to a case in another state, Alaska, where Gov. Sarah Palin refused to testify in her abuse-of-power investigation. Sticking your head in the sand does not make you guilty, nor does it absolve you.

Can we truly trust Rossi to cut spending when he has his own personal agenda that caters to questionable businesses? No thanks.

-- Chris Santos, Seattle

No divisive baggage, please
Your endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi places too much emphasis on the possibility of Rossi achieving a balanced state budget and not enough thought to the divisive baggage Rossi brings with him.

We do not need the division politics that Rossi has endorsed, nor do we need to enhance the power of his friends in the building industry.

Washington state, just like the nation, needs leadership that is pragmatic and unifying -- that is not Rossi.

-- Bob Doyle, Seattle

Go back to your McMansions
I was shocked to pick up my newspaper [Sunday] morning to see that The Times has endorsed Dino Rossi for governor.

Your thinking behind the endorsement reflects a surprising 1980s-like quality.

The assumption is that all government spending is "bad" and all taxes are "bad," and that our state can be run efficiently without that bad ol' government spending.

Government deficits are the ultimate sin.

But here we sit in the 21st century. And I challenge you: Please tell me exactly how Rossi should cut the state budget by 10 percent. Gov. Christine Gregoire has made some very courageous, very overdue investments in schools, transportation and health care.

A state without adequately funded schools will fail. A state with crumbling roads and bridges will fail. A state where health care can't be afforded will fail. A state under Rossi will be all these things -- and will fail.

Rossi and his BIAW [Building Industry Association of Washington] buddies will use their exorbitant tax cuts to continue to rape Washington's natural resources at the expense of us all.

Forget about Washington state joining with other Western states to fight climate change. And just like President George W. Bush and his investment bank/oil company cronies, after Rossi's term is up, they will laugh and retreat to their McMansions while the rest of us are left with a vastly impoverished state.

I am so disappointed that you would endorse this.

-- Isabel D'Ambrosia, Seattle

What planet am I on?
Why on Earth would The Times endorse this deceptive BIAW [Building Industry Association of Washington] mouthpiece for our governor? I am shocked and disappointed that your organization has such low regard for this state's environmental and economic future.

We need Gov. Christine Gregoire's progressive leadership to tackle the serious problems we are facing now, such as education, jobs, global warming and growth management.

-- Melessa Rogers, Burien

You have been duped again
I was disappointed to read your endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi for governor. I was even more disturbed as I followed your rationale. You advance a single reason for your support: He has proved he can cut spending. Is that all that counts?

Does his abysmal record on the environment mean nothing to you? Or his undercutting of Washington state education? Or the vicious campaign of half-truths financed by his cronies in the building-trades industry? Or the fact that he is anti-choice to the core?

As an aside, didn't the spending-cutting budget you are referring to have as much to do with the statesmanship of former Gov. Gary Locke as it did the political maneuvering of Rossi? Locke was, after all, the Democratic governor at the time, with a Democratic majority in the Legislature.

I fear you have been seduced by a warm and responsive demeanor, an expressive and well-modulated vocal tone, and the overall sense of reasonableness that oozes from Rossi's pores.

In short, you have been duped. He is a right-wing extremist on the order of another man who duped you in the past, President George W. Bush.

-- Josiah Erickson, Seattle

A fetid global mess
My community and my family have never had a better friend than Gov. Christine Gregoire in the governor's mansion, and are disappointed in The Seattle Times endorsement of her opponent [gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi].

Her office has demonstrated her commitment to protecting our precious water resources twice in my neighborhood. Why? Because we asked, she listened and she connected with our concerns. As a result, a vulnerable aquifer was spared damage from poorly regulated septic systems. Now the water supply will not be ravaged by too many wells abusing water-rights laws.

She recognized that piecemeal issues had big-picture significance for our state. I don't remember any previous governor acting so quickly and effectively over their signature land-use issues, and I can't imagine her current opponent taking the community's side.

This is just one example of Gregoire's path to improve state health and well-being. She has proved her commitment to Washington state's most important assets: its beauty, natural wonders and its healthy and well-educated work force.

After Gov. Hillary Rodham Clinton, it would be Greek tragedy to watch the rest of the country elect good governors on Obama's coattails while we throw out Gregoire, one of the highest regarded women politicians in the country.

After so many years of economic success, why would Washington want to put itself into the hands of Rossi, a candidate who espouses the failed policies of the GOP that have accomplished nothing but a fetid mess on a global scale.

-- Laura Hartman, Snohomish

Just a chimera
Four years ago, The Times endorsed gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi for governor as a game-changer who would "clean out" Olympia and change its "administrative culture" that was supposedly a drag on Washington state's economy.

It was all nonsense.

At the time, we had actually been ranked as the nation's fourth-friendliest business environment. Moreover, Rossi was well-identified with an assortment of right-wing positions disfavored by the majority of Washingtonians your editorial board chose to overlook.

In Gov. Christine Gregoire's first term, Washington managed to make the top five in Forbes.com's "Top States for Business" report (2007) largely based on reduction of red tape, a culture of innovation and a highly educated work force.

In June of 2008, Washington ranked third on the Pew Center [on global climate change] on the states report, just behind Utah and Virginia, for having the best-run state government.

Four years later, The Times' only rationale for changing horses is the presumptive tough stance Rossi would take in dealing with a projected deficit for 2009 and beyond -- a deficit not of Gregoire's making.
And the one example given by your editorial board as to how "tough" Rossi might be? Making state employees (of the third-best-run state) pay the private-sector average of one-third of their health-care insurance instead of the current 12 percent.

In the words of Peggy Lee, "Is that all there is?"

It's clear your board doesn't have Warren Buffett advising them on economic policy matters.

Rossi has not changed at all, and has proved nothing concerning his ability to govern during the past four years that merits your endorsement.

Your recycled fantasy is, as you state, "he would bring change to the culture of Olympia."

Rossi is nothing more than your chimera, and as the saying goes, "that's not change we can believe in."

-- Jay Causey, Mercer Island

Ken Lambert / The Seattle Times

Gov. Christine Gregoire, shown here arriving at a Northwest Harvest event earlier this year, has been battered by ads sponsored by the Building Industry Association of Washington.

Money for something
Editor, The Times:
$6.3 million -- that's a lot of money.

If we spent this on local schools, it would be a real boost for teachers' salaries or doubling the size of libraries.

But this is the amount of money that one group, the Building Industry Association or Washington, is spending to slime the reputation of the incumbent governor.

Strange. I've always viewed Washington state politics as in the same realm as Minnesota or Vermont, not Texas or New Jersey.

But BIAW's role in this gubernatorial election is slimy, nasty and beyond the call.

As the front-page story in Friday's paper indicates ["Rossi's biggest backer explains what it wants," page one, Oct. 17], there have been many unsuccessful attempts at discouraging BIAW in their role as the pitchman for dirty politics. If legislative, executive and legal challenges can't deter BIAW from their dastardly deeds, what can be done?

Clean and publicly-funded elections. Yes, this is an effective solution to BIAW's slime machine.
Here is how it would work: Candidates for public office would have the choice of groveling for dollars from the usual special-interest groups (like BIAW) or tapping into a state fund to finance their campaigns.

If a candidate chooses to run "clean," he/she must commit to not accept any money from any source.

A clean candidate must gather a set number (about 250 for a legislative seat) of commitments from local
constituents, plus a small ($5) contribution.

If in the course of the campaign, the clean candidate's opponent is funded directly or indirectly by special interests, state election officials can level the financial playing field by offering the clean candidate matching funds that mirror the amount given his/her opponent.

This matching-funds feature is slightly different in Maine, Arizona and North Carolina, where clean elections has existed for several years.

In Maine, Arizona and North Carolina, BIAW would be crippled in their attempt to buy elections the way it is trying to do here because special-interest money has been moved from clean-election states to other states.

Think of it from BIAW's perspective: It's not easy to run against a clean candidate who can say: "I'm not bought and paid for. What you get is what you see. I'm running on specific issues not influenced by any outside money or interests."

Publicly funded campaigns work. There is a better way.

Let's dump BIAW's ways of intimidation and demagoguery.
-- Roger Lauen, Bainbridge Island

Think local
This election must be quite a quandary for Washington Democrats, who are vehemently opposed to Sen. John McCain.

Their opposition is, for the most part, due to their belief that McCain will continue the economic policies of President George W. Bush; policies that they claim have resulted in the current economic crisis.

Given this mindset, the choice of whether or not to vote for Gov. Christine Gregoire, under whose leadership this state has amassed a $3.2 billion deficit, would appear to be a no-brainer.

Yet, despite this recent revelation, Democrats are still doing all they can to get Gregoire re-elected, including filing frivolous lawsuits against gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi in order to derail his second successful bid for governor.

Ask any Sen. Barack Obama supporter, and that person will tell you that a vote for Obama is in the best interest of American citizens.

Ironically, what's in the best interest of Washingtonians doesn't appear to be of much concern.
-- Marina Anna Baker, Bremerton

Should we revert to slavery?
If you buy Richard Delgado's argument that illegal immigrants means cheaper food for us ["Crackdown on illegal immigration boosts food prices," guest commentary, Oct. 15], then why not go back to the time when slavery meant even cheaper goods and services? Unfortunately, Delgado ignores the fundamental point that bothers many of us: Illegal aliens are here illegally and that has to be addressed.

If there was the will within the business community and organizations like the Chamber of Commerce to develop a legal, controlled system to meet shortages of labor in targeted fields, it would happen at light speed. Unfortunately, these groups wanted the current unregulated system to flood the entire labor market with low-wage earners with no rights and no recourse. They aggressively fight any programs like eVerify, which would at least help ensure that jobs go only to people legally here.

Now that the public is sufficiently riled up and pushing back, and the government is finally enforcing the laws on the books, business is crying foul.

I'm sorry if I don't feel sorry for them. They trashed their tent, now they should live with the consequences until we can fix it the right way.

Delgado's point that Latin American immigrants are good, hardworking and honest people is one thing I agree with wholeheartedly. But it doesn't eliminate the fact that they are here illegally as the victims of callous exploitation. I'm hoping that when everyone gets down to resolving this mess, some reasonable accommodation can be reached for those families that have been here for many years while making sure we don't face this again in a few years.

If we could clean up the labor-shortage issue in a rational manner with legal and controlled worker programs, we would have several other beneficial results, including: reducing the size of the hidden (nontax paying) economy; reducing the exploitation of workers my unscrupulous employers; reducing the number of crime victims; and reducing the flow of illegal substances into our communities.

One thing I learned living in Eastern Washington is that when you have a veritable river of illegal immigrants flowing through the community, it provides perfect cover for those importing drugs and contraband.
This is a solvable problem, but it needs to be dealt with honestly by all parties involved.

Just as there is a cultural shift when a community changes, values shift when a large percentage of the population is by definition illegal.
-- Bob Larson, Renton

Hire our children instead
In extolling the economic benefits of illegal-alien agricultural labor, Seattle University law professor Richard Delgado, in effect, serves up the tiresomely familiar "lettuce argument": If illegal aliens aren't working the fields, lettuce will cost consumers $5 per head.

But UC Davis agricultural economist Philip Martin has shown that the field-labor cost included in a $1 head of lettuce is about $.06

Thus, we could triple wages for picking the crops -- at which point Americans would do the jobs -- and the cost of a head of lettuce would rise by 12 percent.
The numbers are similar for other crops.

So a family that spends $15 per week on produce would shell out about $100 more per year, a negligible tab for ending what's virtually modern-day slave labor.

Citizens taking such jobs needn't regard them as careers. Instead, these jobs are worthy introductions to the world of work for youngsters -- and obviously preferable alternatives to our teenagers' current regime of aimlessly cruising malls and getting fat.

I did similarly menial, but worthwhile, tasks when I was a kid.
-- Paul Nachman, Bozeman, Montana

It's not about immigration
If his piece "Crackdown on illegal immigration boosts food prices," is any indication, professor Richard Delgado needs to stick to teaching critical-race theory, and leave agricultural economics to the professionals.

Produce is more expensive now due to dramatic increases in fuel prices, coupled with the fact that we often eat produce grown thousands of miles away, not because the government is finally beginning to enforce our immigration laws.

It is well-established that farm-labor costs constitute a small percentage of retail produce costs.

It is further well-established that when cheap labor is not available, farmers modernize their operations and use equipment instead.

Look at the aftermath of the elimination of the bracero program in California; at the time, consumers were told that they would no longer have tomatoes.

Needless to say, that did not happen.
-- Margaret Manning, Eastsound

Give them support
I read "Seattle high-schoolers can now get failing grades" [News, Oct. 12] with dismay.

Neither teachers nor students should face more consequences for student failure. Both need support.

If one of the main purposes of the WASL [Washington Assessment of Student Learning] is to highlight those students who need additional assistance, then it is our obligation to provide it.

Let's put the money behind the test scores for teacher training and student support. Too many educators lay awake at night worried about their failing students, but have limited training on differentiating instruction to support them.

No student enters kindergarten labeled as lazy. That's what society calls a frustrated student who has given up after repeated failure only to adopt an attitude to cover the frustration.

Washington state has one of the most highly regarded K-12 reading models in the country. It was developed by the Curriculum and Instruction division of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Since it is not mandated, few Washington state teachers even know of the plan. If the practices were followed, fewer students would be failing.

It is shameful to continue testing the victims when a powerful resource is so accessible.
-- Karolyn Backholm, Seattle

Let's talk about it
There is no question that mathematics education in the U.S. and in Washington state needs improving ["A formula for lifting Washington out of its math mess," guest commentary, Oct. 12]. There is also no question that a return to the good old days of teaching students skills minus an understanding of what those skills can be used for is not the remedy needed. The author cites impressive statistics, based on results of Advanced Placement (AP) tests. Yet voices from all over the world, including Singapore, are reporting more and more convincingly that gearing education to the passing of such tests fails the students in serious ways.

Why do we live in a society where so many enjoy doing Sudoko math puzzles without making the connection that the thinking required to work out the puzzle is a vital ingredient of mathematics?

Unlike Ted Nutting, few of us who favor mathematics-education reform would advocate discarding other people's ideas in favor of our own.

There is a large overlap between traditional mathematics teaching done well and reform mathematics teaching done well. What many of us, including [Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction ] Terry Bergeson are aiming for is incorporating the underlying tenets of the reform -- that is, engaging students in building their own understanding and formulating mathematical ideas clearly enough so that they can discuss them, to strengthen the teaching of mathematics.

Take a look at the work of the Washington State Education Coordinating Council, where administrators, higher-education faculty members, teachers, business stakeholders and Bergeson and her staff are working together to create a K-20 mathematics system that builds on the strengths of both traditional and reform mathematics teaching. The task is complex, challenging and at times frustrating. What makes it possible is the breadth of perspective and knowledge of the community working, and the respect with which we hold each other.

Progress is impeded by those who, like Nutting, allow the perception of their own infallibility to permit the unleashing of accusations and slurs, demonstrating a lack of respect essential for civil discourse.

Our schools can benefit from the rich collection of knowledge and research in Washington state, but we will not make any progress without a baseline of respect for all viewpoints regarding the learning of mathematics.
-- Virginia Warfield, Seattle

We're no tin-pot town
Amid all the clamor surrounding the presidential and gubernatorial campaigns, there's one thing many people seem to have lost sight of: Great damage is done whenever one party controls everything, no matter which party holds the reins.

To anyone who looks at the issue without the filter of partisan hatred, it's a very dangerous thing to hand total control to one ideological group and leave the other out in the cold. That defeats the entire purpose of the check-and-balance system our forefathers put in place, and effectively disenfranchises large segments of the population.

This is not the best way to make government responsive to the needs of the people, especially given the propensity of legislators at all levels to pander to those special-interest groups and individuals who paid to get them elected.

Washington has been controlled by one party for years.

Because of the overwhelming imbalance toward the left in King County, the result is a huge state deficit and some of the highest taxes (and lowest return on those taxes) in the country.

Our state government is out of control and out of touch.

In order to maintain some semblance of representative government and keep the ideological zeal of the party in power in check, we need to make sure that at least one branch of government, whether it be the House, Senate or executive, remains in the hands of the opposition party.

Otherwise, we're no better than those tin-pot dictatorships where people can vote for anyone they like -- as long as it's the guy in power.
-- Winston Rockwell, Kirkland

Go back where you came from
Of course the BIAW-sponsored ads about the casinos are racist ["Spokane Tribe upset about casino ads," Politics & Government, Oct. 10].

I don't understand where the state would have any claim to revenues from a business run by a sovereign nation. One would think the citizens of Washington would be glad the tribes have developed an industry to provide jobs and social services to their member.

Maybe we should just give the land back to the tribes and go back to where we came from?
-- Craig Illman, Seattle

Family-leave insurance is still around
The Seattle Times' Oct. 15 editorial misinterpreted Gov. Christine Gregoire's temporary suspension of family-leave-insurance startup funding ["The Times recommends ... Carlyle, Pettigrew, White in districts 36, 37, 46, Times, editorial].

Legislators funded initial costs for the program, to the tune of $6.2 million in the 2008 supplemental budget.
While development of the computer system needed to administer it has been suspended, the program remains on the books.

In the past week, the governor, House Speaker Frank Chopp and Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown have each reiterated their support for finding a funding source outside the general fund and implementing paid family leave. They, like tens of thousands of Washington's families, understand that this program will provide economic relief for middle-class families and give all our children the best start in life.

Given national economic trends, we want an even stronger family-leave plan in the future, with more-comprehensive benefits to ensure working families stay out of poverty during tough economic times. We look forward to working with our colleagues in the coming legislative session to fully fund this crucial program, making Washington a better place to live, work and raise a family.
-- Sen. Karen Keiser, Rep. MaryLou Dickerson

It's not all about the money
The Seattle Times has recommended rejection of Initiative 1029 purely on concerns about cost and that a test would frighten immigrants ["Reject I-1029, a proposal to train and license long-term-care workers," Editorial, Oct. 8].

To appreciate the potential benefits of I-1029, one only has to have a loved one in long-term care. Our loved one was accosted and struck in her own room, and knocked down by another resident as the caretaker watched, apparently not knowing what to do.

Current law requires that long-term caregivers obtain only 34 hours of training. Workers can begin employment after an orientation; they have four months to get the remaining 34 hours. I-1029 would require long-term caregivers to obtain 75 hours of mandatory training and passage of a test.

Insufficiently trained persons staff the majority of long-term-care facilities in the state, with approximately 20,000 new long-term-care workers hired annually.

Long-term-care centers are now "holding bins" for persons who cannot speak English and who are ill prepared to meet the complex needs of persons with advanced Alzheimer's disease.

We urge "yes" on I-1029 on Nov. 4.
-- Shirley and Ray Murphy, Edmonds

Follow the money trail
We are the parents of a child with severe developmental and physical disabilities. We rely heavily on hired caregivers to help us care for our son. We've been lucky enough to have family members, friends and people from our community whom we trust and who have provided excellent care. These good people have already gone through adequate training and background checks by the state in order to provide this care.

If Initiative 1029 were to pass, the requirements to become and remain a caregiver for our son would be unnecessarily burdensome. We could ultimately lose these resources and not be able to find replacements that we would trust and have as much confidence in.

And the same is true for families all across our state. For some, these new requirements might actually apply to a disabled child's own parents or an elderly person's own children.

If I-1029 passes, the sponsors of the initiative are the ones who will benefit financially. It is being supported by Washington state's largest labor union, which will get tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to train their own members.

Don't be fooled by the ballot language that would make it appear that you would be voting for our best interests.
-- Evan Purcell and Ellen Norton, Tacoma

Make the smart choice
I have known Gov. Christine Gregoire for almost 20 years.

I knew her before she was our state's attorney general or governor.

Through the years I have seen the hardest worker I know.

Gregoire has said that her mom was the hardest worker she knew, but if her mother were still alive, I think she would take her hat off to her daughter.

The love she has and has always had for the state of Washington is truly remarkable. She has always been willing to go the extra mile to get things done. She is extremely honest, ethical and has high values. I feel lucky to have her as a friend. She is truly a caring person with her family and with the issues she holds most dear to her heart, such as education, children and the environment.

I feel Washington has been so fortunate to have her as our governor.

I hope our state is smart enough to elect her for four more years.
-- Sheila Riffe, Olympia

Who are you?
Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi is so full of contradictions. He wants to cut the minimum wage $1.50, cut $500 million from education and supports deregulating our economy and health-care system.

Rossi is now trying to quash a subpoena in a lawsuit filed by Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna regarding campaign-finance violations with the Building Industry Association of Washington ["AG's office clarifies comments regarding BIAW-Rossi lawsuit," news, Oct. 11].

He is charged with "illegally coordinated fundraising," and wants to testify after the election.

Rossi now says he is a supporter of stem-cell research. In his first debate with Gov. Christine Gregoire four years ago, local Seattle and Everett newspapers displayed these quotes: When asked who would lead stem-cell research Rossi said, "California would lead" and that he "didn't want to compete with California, with Washington state dollars." Also, "It's not relevant whether I support it or not, it's already legal," topped by "I don't know enough about the issue to say whether it is ethical."

On Rossi's current transportation plan to solve Highway 520's bridge problems, he has proposed eight lanes for his "bridge to nowhere."
He says he can do it for $1 billion less than the six-lane proposal by Gov. Gregoire. That's a head-scratcher.

Of course, he doesn't say how those extra lanes will access Interstate 5 and surrounding communities, as well as how, and at what cost, the Eastside and Seattle will be affected.

The Joker in the deck is that at a recent local Chamber of Commerce meeting, The Mukilteo Beacon reported Rossi forces are still sobbing that in the last election there were "several hundred ballots that weren't counted," and forgot to mention that those approximately 600 ballots that weren't counted came from King County, where Gov. Gregoire had a 60-40 percent advantage.

Isn't it strange that Republican Rossi, as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, with a Republican majority in the Senate, wasn't able to work in a nonpartisan way to get a fast-tract transportation system in place and, as writer of the 2003 budget, left Gov. Gregoire with a $2.2 billion deficit?
--Max W. Don, Mukilteo

Substance over style
Up until now, Washington's strong economy and Gov. Christine Gregoire's good management have kept our state from the huge budget shortfalls facing many other states. But as the current economic crisis spreads from Wall Street to the rest of the world, we are no longer immune.

Who should we trust to make the tough choices our state will have to make -- gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi or Gov. Christine Gregoire?

The only subject Rossi has been specific about is a transportation plan no one is taking seriously. He claims that he's not running for office on issues like abortion, but his socially conservative values will inevitably influence his decisions about which parts of the budget to fund and which to cut.

Gregoire has created a good business climate and expanded trade for our state, but has also improved children's health care, education and environmental policy (including a real plan for how to clean up Puget Sound).

When budgets need to be trimmed, I trust her more-balanced approach to Washington's needs.
Gregoire is a proven leader with solid accomplishments; Rossi has no real executive experience.

As times get tougher, we will need substance over style. I'll be voting for Gregoire.
-- Linda Norlen, Seattle

Personality matters
As a first-time voter this year, I know I can speak for many when I say that personality in a candidate does matter ["Christine Gregoire: Smart, intense and struggling to woo voters," news, Oct. 10].

Compared with Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain seems very intense, just as Gov. Christine Gregoire seems when matched with gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi's good sense of humor and laid-back personality.

I know that my vote for governor should be based off their stance in politics and how they plan to help make our state better economically, but if Gregoire wants to get re-elected, especially with young voters, she has to present herself in a more relaxed and comfortable way.

This story mentioned a few times how Gregoire shows her "formal" side when she is in public.

Young voters don't care about relaying the stats if the personality doesn't come with it.

If Gregoire were to act more like she does when she is around her family, she would be a much more likable candidate in this upcoming election.

She would get my vote.
--Jacquelyn Komen, Seattle

Like drawing blood from a rock
Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi's latest attack ad features two women sharing their woes over increasing property taxes for citizens living on "fixed incomes." What they fail to capture on camera is the true background behind why this is the case.

Washington state is one of the few remaining in the nation without an income tax. Therefore, money to provide services needs to come from other sources such as sales tax, gas tax, motor-vehicle tax and property tax.

Unfortunately, these are all examples of "regressive taxes," meaning that the lower a person's income, the higher the percentage of income she/he pays in tax.

Income tax, on the other hand, is an example of "progressive tax," which means that the percentage of tax paid increases proportionately to one's income.

Mere mention of instituting an income tax in Washington, however, has become known as political suicide for anyone who dares utter the words.

This results in the phenomenon of the citizens with the lowest incomes providing the broadest base of revenues for the state budget. Anyone with even a few firing brain cells should be able to figure out the answer to that equation.

And each time Tim Eyman [initiative guru] sits down at his keyboard to create his latest example of shortsighted "vomit," the coffers of the state budget creep further into the red zone.

I hope the legislators and citizens of this state will wake up someday and recognize that this cannot continue.

Voting for Rossi, my friends, is not the answer to the problem. In fact, his "solutions" to the budget crisis will only make things worse -- not just for the working class, but for all of us who depend on the working class to bear such a large percentage of the tax burden.

Ever try getting blood from a rock?

Gov. Gregoire's "reckless spending," as Rossi-ites refer, has been for "superficial" things like health care and education for our youth -- investments that will lead to large payoffs in the future if we can be patient.

The best solution is to overhaul the tax structure in our state.
-- Rebecca Resnick, Seattle

Actions speak louder than lies
Much has been written and spoken about truth in advertising during this election cycle.

This makes it hard for voters to know exactly what we can believe and who we can trust. With that as our conflict, perhaps our choices should be based on what each candidate brings to the election in character and experience. If that is the criteria, the only choice is Gov. Christine Gregoire. Her years of public service as our state attorney general and our governor, move her to the top of the list of qualified candidates.

In this, the most important election in my life, I would not consider voting for anyone other than Gregoire.
-- Vincent Lachina, Seattle

Give us someone who cares
The race for governor comes down to this: caring or careless.

Gov. Christine Gregoire has proved she cares for all the residents of this state. No matter their color, socioeconomic status, religion, sexual orientation or age, her vision is simple: serve, protect and instill hope for a better future.

Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi believes catering to business interests and letting capitalism reign free of "government regulation" is the end-all.

Wake up Rossi -- we can only call that careless.

Roll back the minimum wage? Deny equal rights to committed gay couples? Grant more tax breaks to your friends in the building industry? Careless, careless, careless.
-- Michael Wrenn, Seattle

Think of the children
During the past four years, under the leadership of Gov. Christine Gregoire, the state has made wise investments to ensure the well-being of vulnerable children. These include investments in foster care, early learning, reduced class size, health-care coverage and child-nutrition programs. One would never guess this from the distortions about her record that fill our airwaves.

Take foster care, for example. Thousands of children in Washington are placed in foster care each year. For most, this provides needed safety and stability. For a few, it does not.

Gregoire and the Legislature have dramatically increased funding (approximately $198 million) and oversight of foster care to address problems. She has been a leader in Washington and the nation.

When Gregoire took office, Child Protective Services (CPS) investigations were required within 72 hours of a report when a child was at risk of harm. Today, it's 24 hours, and this quick action means fewer children have subsequent referrals to CPS.

The response time for lower-risk cases has also improved. There is much to do, but Gregoire has the knowledge, commitment and focus to keep on track to improve the well-being of all of the children who come to the state's attention.

It is important to understand the facts to determine who will be the best governor for the most vulnerable children in Washington. The Children's Campaign Fund (a nonpartisan PAC dedicated to electing champions for children) has endorsed Gregoire for governor because of her demonstrated leadership, commitment and capacity to protect all children and her proven track record.
-- Marty Jacobs, Seattle

Editorial was a cheap shot
As a Republican voter, I believe The Times' description of state Rep. Maralyn Chase as a "caricature of a liberal Democrat" was a cheap shot ["Snohomish, North King legislative races: experience matters," editorial, Oct. 14].

The Times may object to Rep. Chase's willingness to rock the boat in Rep. Frank Chopp's clubby little world in Olympia, but I find her candor, support for small business and her willingness to work across partisan lines to be refreshing.

She deserves much better than your belittling tut-tutting.
-- Jim DiPeso, Shoreline

You missed the target
Your description of Maralyn Chase as "a caricature of a liberal Democrat" could hardly be further from the truth.

Furthermore, she lives in unincorporated Snohomish County in Esperance, adjoining Edmonds --not in Shoreline. She represents the 32nd Legislative District, of which Shoreline is a major part but only a part.
You have apparently been influenced in your judgment by Shoreline people who favor profit over people.

They seek to develop Shoreline into a Bellevue-like city, adding to their net worth while putting small businesses out of business.

In Olympia, Chase is a pioneer who does great work and tons of research with the legislative initiatives that she promotes, which are mostly for a healthier environment, accountability in government and social responsibility.

You must be listening to her corporate opponents who fight her continually as she works hard to protect and preserve a clean Puget Sound, safe foods and products and the pillars of democracy: trustworthy elections, education, constitutional law and a democratic form of representative government.

Chase is a champion who has led the effort to keep St. Edward State Park from being taken over by private ownership, thereby preserving the biodiversity of this public land.

She is undoubtedly one of the best-informed members of the Legislature. She does her own research and studies the bills, unlike many "electeds" who show up during the legislative session but do little work when not in Olympia.

As a constituent who also works on environmental issues and legislation, I am shocked at your lack of knowledge about this outstanding progressive Democrat.
-- Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds

Protect your bodies
I appreciated The Times informative line-by-line comparison of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi vs. Gov. Christine Gregoire on the issues "The governor's race: a primer," news, Oct. 12], especially Dino Rossi's position on abortion: "He's not running on the issue and doubts that a bill restricting abortion would ever come before him if he's elected. But he's indicated he would sign such a bill."

Is not the second sentence a non sequitur to the first sentence of this stance?

Ladies, it is your body and Rossi will use his pen to control it, given the chance.
-- Carter Kinnier, Seattle

Not a breed we want
So gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi claims to be a new breed of conservative politician.
After carefully reading "The governor's race: a primer" (Oct. 12), I'd have to say he's more of a wolf in sheep's clothing. $15 billion for wider highways? Great idea, so long as you don't mind stealing $10 billion from education and health care to pay for it.

Trouble with the economy? Get rid of those pesky "unnecessary regulations" and just like Wall Street, our state will be doing fine!

And by the way, did you know that "costly regulations" are one of the primary reasons our health-care costs are through the roof? Better deregulate those insurance companies while we're at it!

The giant mess our country is in today is the result of eight years of exactly this sort of thinking.

The voters of Washington need to ask themselves, "can we afford to turn our state over to a man whose policies are more of the same deregulating, free-market, run-amok foolishness?'
I don't think so.

If nothing else, my pocket book says "No way."
-- Ann Tucker-Gwinn, Seattle

Prioritize expenditures, don't increase taxes
My husband and I are retired with limited monthly income. We are watching the stock market plummet along with Wall Street and mortgage bailouts. Our investments, which we need to supplement our income, have gone down the toilet.

We can't afford more taxes.

Now that the election is near, Gov. Christine Gregoire is worried and responds by saying she is cutting expenses and won't raise taxes. But past actions show us that she will do just the opposite. Don't forget the state gas taxes, along with $500 million dollars of other taxes and fees.

Moreover, in the past she has voiced support for a state income tax.

But again, the election is near, so she is trying to convince us otherwise.

We support gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi because he is experienced in balancing the budget by prioritizing expenditures and not increasing taxes and fees.

Likewise, in the presidential race, we support Sen. John McCain. He will be tireless in stopping wild government and pork-barrel spending.

McCain and Rossi give struggling families and senior citizens hope that there will be money left in our wallets.
-- Lyn Allen, Spokane

Candidate coverage slanted

Has your newspaper simply given up on the concept of presenting balanced "news" coverage? Two Times articles -- Thursday's on gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi ["A born salesman tries to close the deal," page one, Oct. 9] and Friday's on Gov. Christine Gregoire ["Smart, intense and struggling to woo voters," page one, Oct. 10] -- show in stark relief your slanted treatment of the candidates.

Just look at the headlines. You might as well have just written "Rossi schmuck" and "Gregoire saint." Neither article has facts regarding the actual accomplishments of the candidates, unless one counts the mention of Gregoire cooking five meals every weekend in order to make sure she could serve dinner to her family every weekday -- saintly stuff, that.

The article on Rossi really only manages to get across the idea that he has been a real-estate salesman and is always smiling, and the article on Gregoire can only manage a succession of excuses as to why she is socially awkward.

Those excuses are effusive in their praise of her cerebral bearing and intellectual qualification for the job -- this, regarding a candidate that has numerous examples of costly managerial miscues during her tenure as the head of the Department of Ecology and attorney general.

Rossi is portrayed as a lightweight who seems to not realize that if he wins the election, he will have to be governor and it might harsh his buzz. For heaven's sake, the man served as a legislator for more than 10 years and played a key role in shaping the budget -- in a bipartisan way -- during very contentious times, but your article makes is sound like he is simply not qualified for the job.
-- David Bennett, Bellevue

Rossi supporters get it
To sum up The Times front-page coverage of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi and Gov. Christine Gregoire from Thursday and Friday: Rossi is a slick salesman.

On the other hand, Gregoire is incredibly smart, brimming with so many good ideas that many of us can't connect with her. Translation: Rossi supporters just don't get it! And, Gregoire had dinner with her family every night!

Thanks so much -- I think I finally understand everything I need to know about the Washington state gubernatorial race.
-- Milly Kay Baldwin, Sammamish

Try tying Gregoire to Congress, Rossi
It's interesting how all the Democrats, even Gov. Christine Gregoire, is trying their very best to tie every Republican to George W. Bush, probably because his approval rating is pretty low.

But U.S. Congress' approval ratings are even lower. Has anybody noticed that the gas prices and all this economic meltdown started when the Democrats took office?

I think gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi should tie Gregoire to the "do nothing" Congress. We, as the people of Washington, need to remember that it was she who, when she got in office, basically blew off I-912, which was the 9.5-cent-per-gallon gas tax that we voted down.

We now know that she got chummy with the Indian casinos, turning down millions of dollars of tax revenue, so they would donate thousands of dollars for her campaign.

Does anyone remember how King County basically kept recounting votes and finding extra votes here and there that were not in secure areas, but still allowed to count? It kept going until she won, then the counting stopped. Very interesting, wouldn't you say?
-- Pat Ferrell, Renton

The Associated Press

Gov. Christine Gregoire and challenger Dino Rossi debate Thursday in Spokane.

Gregoire knows community
Editor, The Times:
I am writing about your page-one story, "A born salesman tries to close the deal" [Oct. 9]
Gov. Christine Gregoire always tries to connect to the community. She participates in many activities and reaches out to the community.

I belong to the Sikh community, and Gregoire has visited the Sikh Gurudwara quite often. Her daughters are also involved in her campaign and reach out to the community. Her daughter Michelle has visited the Sikh Gurudwara and other community centers to support her mother. It is this connection that solidifies her victory.

She has heard the community and helped us even during our tough times.
She revised the guidelines for the turban when the DOT had issued a statement that said, "not valid for identification."

Immigrants have faced hardships and it would be a tough task if we did not have Gov. Gregoire in office.
Politics is not about making "real-estate deals." It is about providing services and reaching out to the community. It is working together to make Washington state and the country a better place. These are tough times. The economy is in turmoil.

We need Gov. Gregoire in office more now than any time before.
-- Sarab Singh, Kent

The worried citizen
Gov. Christine Gregoire should be winning this re-election race handily.

We live in a state that has dodged the worst of the economic crisis and still has a balanced budget when California is already asking the federal government for a $7 billion emergency loan.

The problem is that she's a good governor for the very reason she's having a tough time getting re-elected: She's pragmatic and honest.

A perfect example is her intervention in two recent Seattle-area disputes: When Boeing machinists and corporate negotiators reached an impasse, Gregoire urged them to give negotiations one more try. And when Seattle made moves to eject Nickelsville from its first home, Gregoire sent a negotiator to work out a deal and let them move temporarily to state property.

In both cases she was the "cooler head."

There's nothing sexy about this kind of leadership -- no grand speeches and no stunning debate performances.

She's faced with an opponent who is the epitome of the empty promise -- with his big smile and slick debate performances.

I'm not worried about Gregoire; she'll be fine whether she's governor or not. I'm worried about us.
-- Andy Jellin, Seattle

The businessman's got what it takes
In this time of national economic crisis and the implosion of Washington Mutual, people are wondering if they'll still have jobs in six months and if they'll be able to make their mortgage payments.

We need to elect a governor who will restore the strong economic growth and opportunity we used to enjoy.
Washington state has the nation's third-highest rate of small-business failure. People who want to start their own businesses can't afford to. Others are losing their jobs because companies can't make payroll.

Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi is a businessman and knows what it takes to create and keep jobs.
You want job security? Vote for Rossi.

Despite her 2004 campaign promises, Gov. Christine Gregoire has raised taxes. This has hindered job growth and left us all with less money in our pockets. Even with higher taxes, Gregoire's huge spending increases have left us with a projected billion-dollar-plus state-budget deficit for next year.

Rossi balanced the budget as a legislator in 2003 without raising taxes, and he will do it again.
We don't need higher taxes here in Washington; we need efficient government.

You want more of your paycheck in your pocket? Vote for Rossi.
--Elizabeth Stall, Bothell

Foster care has improved
Our children are too important to be subjected to partisan political attacks, and that is why I am upset with gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi lying about Gov. Christine Gregoire's record on foster care ["Radio ads criticize Gregoire on handling of sex offenders, funding for foster care," news, June 19].

Does he think we will ignore the fact that Gregoire is getting results that help foster children?

New caseworkers have been hired and investigations now begin within 24 hours instead of the previous 72 hours.

Our foster-care system has improved under Gregoire, and Rossi, a parent just like her, should understand this.
-- Josette Gregoire (not related), Seattle

Rossi is another West
Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi certainly shares a lot of the same dangerous economic ideas with his Republican ally George Bush. They both favor deregulation, cutting education and health programs to pay for tax cuts for big corporations.

These strategies won't work in Washington state

But Rossi reminds me of another politician from our state Senate: the late Jim West. They were both conservative state senators, leaders in the state Republican Party, and chairmen of the Senate Ways and Means Committee. Both West and Rossi took great pride in their shameless cuts in health services for poor children and their tax breaks for corporate campaign donors. They also ran the most offensive and dishonest campaigns anywhere in this state.

West once tried to run for state office, but, like Rossi, he was defeated. It's time for the citizens to stand up and vote against Rossi one more time. We have seen the damage Bush did as president and West did as mayor of Spokane; we don't need to see the damage Rossi can do as governor.
-- Christopher Katke, Spokane

Kudos to Gregoire on nuclear-waste issue
Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi attacks Gov. Christine Gregoire for not bending over backward to invite the French nuclear giant Areva to bring nuclear-waste reprocessing to Washington state ["Gregoire, Rossi clash on spending, health care," Local News, Oct. 2].

If Rossi thinks Areva is great for Washington, maybe he should talk to the wine growers of Tricastin in the southern Rhone Valley. They are less than thrilled with the spill of 75 kilograms of untreated uranium solution last July and Areva's molasses-slow pace alerting authorities that there was a problem.

Revelations of waste-management failures at Tricastin have shaken French complacency about nuclear power. France ordered residents downstream not to drink water from their wells and farmers not to irrigate their fields. Not the kind of image a wine region wants to cultivate.

Kudos to Gregoire for asking basic questions like, where would the radioactive waste from reprocessing go?
Some bandwagons aren't worth jumping on.
-- Helen Wheatley, Olympia

Topic moot
Thank you for your editorial chastising the Gregoire campaign for trying to make embryonic stem-cell research the "core" issue of this campaign ["Stick to the election, get past stem cells," editorial, Sept. 23].
To reiterate, there are no state programs involving embryonic stem-cell research. Gov. Christine Gregoire has proposed no programs involving embryonic stem-cell research.
Therefore, this is a nonissue in the current gubernatorial campaign and a red herring to distract voters from the fact that the governor has no real accomplishment upon which to campaign.
-- Mark Ursino, Sammamish