Letters To The Editor

CUTS AND BUDGETS

Cut arts funding - last

A lot of noise is being made about “zeroing out” public broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts by public officials I consider to be anti-culture ideologues.

I am a strong and vocal believer in the idea that public funding for the arts contributes to the public good in a way that cannot occur without such underwriting. I think they contribute to the intellectual and cultural strength of this nation far in excess of the minuscule portion of the budget they represent.

I think the attacks on these programs are coming from narrow-minded individuals, such as House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sen. Jesse Helms, who are intent on taking cheap shots at easy targets with a mind toward drawing attention to themselves.

If this nation is going to cut off tax funding for these programs, it damn well better also cut subsidies for the tobacco killers, stop paying agribusiness to not grow crops, repeal the railroad land grant acts and make sure that deregulation never again allows anything similar to the savings and loan debacle.

Short of these steps being taken to stop tax dollars from flowing to the fat cats in corporate offices, I will never vote for any politician who advocates cutting public funding for the arts. Maury Cain Newport, Wash.

Better cuts than CPB easy to find

To the jigsaws in the Puzzle Palace: So you want to cut the deficit, eh? Not a bad idea.

It would be wrong to pass on to our children a huge national debt. It’s only right that we whittle it down to size, to pay our fair share before the next generation has to pay its share.

But to do so by cutting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? Surely you’ve got more sense than that! Why cut a program that provides culture and balanced reporting at a nominal cost? You say it’s elitist? You must not listen to Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers. They are about as elitist as my grandmother’s socks.

Why not instead show some sense and cut government subsidies to tobacco agribusiness? These folks are growing rich while spreading cancer all over the world. Who knows, if the price of tobacco rises without those subsidies, maybe fewer kids will be able to afford the stuff and we’ll reap a savings later on when we don’t have to pick up the tab for their lung cancer treatments.

Or, you could cut your own congressional pension plans down to size. That would save billions.

If you jigsaws really want to save money, there are sensible ways to do it while still promoting culture and honest news reporting. Get your priorities straight, and keep your hands off the CPB. S.B. Rumsey Colville, Wash.

Benefit cut invites political death

In all the talk about cutting Social Security, the most discussed method seems to be to reduce or eliminate the cost-of-living adjustment.

In each of the past five years the average Social Security recipient received less than a 3 percent increase. Congress, on the other hand, received a fixed (by law) 4 percent increase in each of those years. Based on the average Social Security check, seniors received an increase of between $15 and $20 a month, while the average congressperson received an increase of between $550 and $600 per month. That’s just about the size of the average monthly Social Security check.

If Social Security cost-of-living increases are reduced or eliminated, Congress better reduce or eliminate its annual fixed 4 percent increase, or 30 million senior citizens and everybody they can influence will do everything possible to fire a bunch of congressmen, until every one of them who voted to cut or eliminate the Social Security COLA is out scuffing shoe leather looking for a better job. Dave Perkins Spokane

What Republicans should cut

Would Republicans have the stomach to cut two bad welfare programs?

The first is Uncle Sam being sugar for the rich and the greedy. Solution: stop the practice.

The second one is giving welfare to nations with which the United States has a trade deficit. Solution: Require these nations to purchase as much from the United States as the United States buys from them.

This is called “equal trade” and is fair. The formula should be determined by the retail value of the products in the United States.

Products manufactured by American companies in these countries would be included in exports to the United States. I hope American companies manufacturing in poor countries pay their workers a decent wage.

Equal trade could create many good jobs for U.S. workers.

Congress must not abolish laws and rules that protect American workers. Early in this century there were no such laws. At that time, workers organized to better their conditions. Businesses hired goon squads to keep the workers from reaching their goals. Could it happen again? Fred Kissinger Spokane

Cutting needn’t be so complicated

In answer to the editorial, “For budget cuts? Expect some pain” (Feb. 28):

Any reasonable citizen or responsible family wants to balance the budget - a necessity of the good life. The question is, how to cut? Eliminating waste would do it.

How do you define waste? The Grace Commission has done it. Who is listening? I have yet to hear the fair way. That will eventually be the answer. How else?

Cut a certain percentage across the board, all agencies of government. Salaries, benefits, allowances, expense accounts - all government business.

How much? The budget is 14 percent above revenue. Cut 2 percent per year for seven years or for as long as it takes.

What about inflation? Inflation must be curbed. It is the cruelest tax of all.

Think about it, fellow citizens. I am. Eileen Wilson Spokane

GOVERNMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Radicals behind aquifer move

We applaud the recent decision by the Washington Department of Ecology to oppose the designation by Environmental Protection Agency of 8.2 million acres in Eastern Washington as a sole source aquifer.

This is a perfect example of the crisis facing America today. Does all knowledge and the ability to make “correct decisions” come from Washington, D.C., and federal agencies?

Apparently, the Moscow, Idaho Palouse-Clearwater Environmental Institute thinks so. This group petitioned the EPA to designate the 14,000-square-mile area in Washington. Those with a different view include all eight elected area U.S. congressional representatives, a U.S. senator, county commissioners and virtually every area mayor, the Washington Farm Bureau, the Washington Cattlemen’s Association, The National Farmers Association and the Northwest Council of Governments.

They believe this decision should be based on science, not on the agenda of radical environmentalists or federal agencies seeking to expand their regulatory authority. Irwin. W. Graedel, county commissioner Davenport, Wash.

Craig’s bill bodes ill for forests

I am responding to D.F. Oliveria’s Feb. 21 editorial on Sen. Larry Craig’s so-called forest health bill. Sen. Craig’s bill would give unreasonable advantage to an already advantaged timber industry through the “interested person” criteria. As stated in Section 3, “Any interested person may petition either secretary (interior/agriculture) to designate a specific area of lands of at least 100 acres in size within the secretary’s jurisdiction as a forest health emergency … “

The hidden agenda of the Craig bill is gaining access to roadless areas, which are viewed by conservationists as critical habitat for wildlife. The so-called forest health problems are primarily found at lower elevations where big trees have been logged and little ones left behind in thickets. However, the emphasis of timber salvage will not be focused here.

It is time for all of us to recognize that dead trees are essential elements of forest ecosystems. Insects, pathogens and fire are nature’s compost. Mr. Oliveria decries the “wasted” rotting dead trees without recognizing the nutrient cycling and soil-building function of decaying wood.

A recent Times/Mirror-commissioned poll shows 76 percent of Americans feel environmental regulations have not gone far enough or are at the right balance. There is no excuse for exempting public lands’ timber sales from this nation’s environmental laws. Sen. Craig’s bill will provide a legal loophole large enough to drive a log truck through. No roadless area or old-growth forest will be out of reach from a well-placed match and an “interested person” petition. T.J. Coleman Republic, Wash.

LAW AND JUSTICE

Anti-gun people, consider intent

Edward Keeley’s anti-National Rifle Association letter of Feb. 22 once again misses the mark. It seems those with anti-gun sentiments lack the interest or intellect to comprehend the point that the NRA has advanced.

The issue of “relevancy” in the criminal use of firearms has little to do with the type of firearm involved. It has much to do with the intent of the user. Those who oppose the banning of various types of firearms invariably support the stringent enforcement of laws prohibiting the use of a firearm, or any weapon, with criminal intent. Those who favor various gun bans are shifting a portion of that blame from the criminal to the firearm.

Criminal intent is the relevant issue, Mr. Keeley. Gun bans amount to injecting the personal, visceral hatred of firearms held by a minority into law. This is the issue that the NRA wishes to inject into the public policy debates. Judging from the results of the last election, they were successful. John Powell Spokane

Wrong to abridge Fourth Amendment

In reference to HR 666, the bill that Congress just passed that gives law enforcement officials the right to confiscate property without a valid warrant: This is in total violation of the Fourth Amendment.

It’s true that criminals get off because of technicalities. The answer is not to trample the rights of law-abiding citizens by trampling the Fourth Amendment.

Who is to decide what acting in good faith is? A policeman? A judge? A magistrate? A jury? What we need to do is educate law enforcement officials at federal, state and local levels about constitutional law. This would not cost cities that much. In the long run, it would protect them from litigation for violating someone’s rights. William Hall Spokane

Lawsuit reform deserves support

A bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives seeks to help protect us all from frivolous lawsuits and outrageous damage awards.

HB 956 would limit punitive damage awards to three times a person’s economic damages or $250,000, whichever is greater, in all cases. To me, that makes good sense.

I know punitive damages are an important way to punish guilty people for misconduct, but these large sums of money are over and above a person’s out-of-pocket expenses (lost wages, medical bills) and other money for pain and suffering, emotional distress and the like. There’s a real problem today when people use our legal system to get rich.

It’s about time someone stood up for the rights of people like you and me. I plan to tell Rep. George Nethercutt that I support this common-sense approach to making the legal system work for all of us. Steven J. Van Horne Cheney

Simpson attorneys using bad tactic

Methods being used by O.J. Simpson’s defense attorneys to discredit the Los Angeles Police Department are unconscionable.

Citizens of Los Angeles County are being asked to believe that the people working hard to protect them are actually out to get them.

I am the mother of a Snohomish County homicide detective and I am well aware of the intense legal, technical and diplomacy training that goes with a career in law enforcement. The overwhelming majority of these men and women are sincerely trying to make their communities safe places in which to live. Those with visions of racist persecution of power are weeded out very early.

Priorities need to be set during the investigation of all crime scenes, particularly in the case of the senseless, brutal slaughter of two people. Only the officers called to such a scene can determine what needs to be done, how and when. It is outrageous that these lawyers should try to pick apart every person and department of the LAPD.

The officers are not the ones on trial; they have done an excellent job under trying circumstances.

If the only defense available is to discredit the entire LAPD something is terribly wrong. It is beyond my imagination to think that the entire LAPD is out to get anyone. This legal strategy is insulting to every police department in the country and should be of concern to every law-abiding citizen.

I hope the jurors see this desperate attack for what it is. Mary Lou Prentiss Coeur d’Alene

Don’t coddle criminals, work them

TV, libraries, physical fitness room, wholesome food, good medical care, clean, comfortable housing, very little work and conjugal visits: an institution of punishment or a country club?

We’ve turned away from punitive measures and now coddle the offenders of society. There is currently little real deterrent to societal crimes. Most prisoners live better than many who try to live crime-free, moral and productive lives. The scenario is totally ludicrous.

Why should working citizens pay thousands to maintain the dregs of humanity? Since they should be responsible for their own actions, why not put them to work in hardlabor situations to pay for their own upkeep? A selfsupporting policy would help alleviate the tax burden on the average citizen.

I’m disgusted and fed up with paying for criminals to become physically fit and educated. They should be compensating for their crimes and overhead by cleaning and repairing roads and parks, or performing other public duties.

When will common sense prevail and the upside-down actions of the judicial system be reversed to favor the victims, rather than the lawbreakers? Tom Hayes Spokane

OTHER TOPICS

Light shines in development tunnel

Many thanks to (Business columnist) Frank Bartel and Don Barbieri for proposing an urban village, rather than another shopping mall for downtown Spokane.

Thanks also to Metropolitan Mortgage, whose Summit Project said it first, and Washington State University architecture students, who have been saying it all along.

All over the country, Earth First!ers are debating Me Firsters over whether various extractions and developments are really rapings or merely takings. Talk about your nasty paradigm!

I hope we don’t forget the God Firsters, some of whom might say that sustainable development downtown shouldn’t mean the wholesale abandonment of current residents in exchange for gentrified urbanites who commute to work in the suburbs. Don Hornbeck Spokane

Your rationale means nothing

(Interactive editor) Doug Floyd’s defense of the A-bomb cartoon and (Graphics editor) Scott Sines’ defense of Milt Priggee’s work both amount to this: The more insulting and unfair a cartoon is, the better, since then it “sparks debate” all the more.

Apparently, for these gentlemen, debate consists of people shouting childish insults at each other.

What sort of useful dialogue is stirred up by these cartoons? The people who share the cartoonist’s views enjoy seeing their opponents insulted. Those insulted complain that they and their views are being unfairly and insultingly portrayed. Some debate.

Take the A-bomb cartoon. Tell me, Doug, in the debate about our country’s use of the A-bomb to end the war with Japan, what function is played by portraying World War II veterans as fat old fools? How does that gratuitous insult of brave and honorable men further a productive dialogue on this issue?

Scott Sines wants us to believe that when Milt Priggee draws cartoons labeling Newt Gingrich with a swastika, portraying all pro-lifers as murderous fanatics, etc., that he’s “using a mixture of irreverent wit and artistic talent to question our society’s values, assumptions, hypocrisies, virtues and vices.” Oh please. What Milt Priggee is doing is using a mixture of artistic talent and virulent ideological hatred to vent his spleen by insulting those he disagrees with.

We all know that political cartoonists are accorded a certain license. The problem is that Priggee routinely abuses that license, mistaking his infantile nastiness for “irreverent wit.” Chip Piper Sagle, Idaho