Letters To The Editor
BALANCED BUDGET
The Republican scam continues
The balanced budget amendment was typical unbalanced Republican thinking. It was a meaningless, unenforceable piece of legislation with procedural tie-ups that took attention away from any real effort to actually solve problems.
Republican fiscal responsibility is a lie. The numbers show that the Republican administration increased the national debt while the Democratic administrations reduced it.
A balanced budget depends on tax revenues from many diversified sources. The Republican administrations have narrowed the tax revenue sources by giving the wealthy and unproductive industries repeated tax cuts. Last year business paid only 10 percent of the taxes collected. It was 39 percent for the individual taxpayers. By giving tax breaks to the wealthy they placed the tax burden on the backs of the middle class who can least afford to pay.
Now that we have a Republican Congress the scam continues. Congress has not looked at the huge subsidies raked off by the tobacco industry and agriculture. They started by viciously attacking the poor of this country. Most of their irresponsible cuts have been directed at the needy. They have cut education, nutrition for children and mothers, and school lunches. They are planning on trashing civil protections against fraud and shoddy products. They are slashing hope instead of wasteful subsidies. And the Republicans are planning on giving the money extorted from the poor and ultimately defenseless to the wealthy in the form of more tax cuts.
That is proper Republican fiscal responsibility. After all, the poor can’t buy representation as well as the wealthy can. Richard H. Stalter Ephrata, Wash.
Balanced budget factions mixed up
Am I losing it? I don’t understand this balanced budget amendment debate. For years we have covered up the true size of the deficit by counting the Social Security surplus as income. If we were to exclude Social Security, the deficit would be larger, thus requiring deeper cuts to achieve a balanced budget.
Seems that the Republicans - the party of smaller government - should support this exclusion. Likewise, the Democrats, as the party of bigger government, should oppose such a provision.
Why is it, do you think, that the parties took the opposite positions during the great debate? Could we be seeing some politics here? Did the Democrats desert their principles in order to win a big one? Did the Republicans want the amendment to fail to create a campaign issue in the next election?
Or, could it be that the Capitol Hill water supply is tapped into the Potomac River, and the industrial pollution from the river has addled the brains of our beloved leaders? Jim Shamp Cheney
Republican plans appalling
I was genuinely appalled recently when I read the Republicans in Congress were considering selling Bonneville Power Administration and closing out the Social Security Trust Fund to pay off the national debt.
The nation fought World War II and loaned our allies England, France, Russia, even Japan and Germany - huge amounts of money, instituted the Marshall Plan, supported the United Nations and its many arms for peace and international stability, and still kept our finances under control.
Social Security in reality is just a glorified insurance company. We paid into the fund, now we are the beneficiaries drawing it out.
To sell off Bonneville Power Administration would be putting two knives in the back of Washington state. First, there is no oil or natural gas for cheap power in the Northwest. Second, if you travel anywhere in the eastern part of the state, one must cross the Columbia River, and those roads and bridges do not come cheap.
Since the failure of the trickle-down theory is what has caused the problem, why not institute the same system of taxation used during World War II? True, some would pay more than others, but they are the one best able to pay and most likely would be in the best position financially when the debt is paid off. Theron F. Drake Brewster, Wash.
IDAHO ISSUES
Don’t make a bad problem worse
D.F. Oliveria is all wet when it comes to the Priest Lake issue (Opinion, March 15).
My family has been a lease-holder at Priest Lake for almost 30 years. We’ve seen the effects of its popularity over the years: increased water pollution, overcrowded camp sites and waterways.
We settled on Priest Lake because of its pristine beauty; it wasn’t crowded or polluted. We want it to stay that way.
This isn’t an issue of exclusivity, but rather an environmental question. Priest Lake cannot support a greater population without compromising its quality. The “greatest good,” should be defined by what is best for the lake and the sensitive environment, not by how many people we can cram into limited space.
Take a look at other campsites on the islands. It’s disgusting. Do you know what happens when campsites have no sanitation or garbage facilities? My wife and I frequently go to Baritoe Island to pick up garbage. The Russells also pick up garbage left by campers.
Walk through the campsites on the south side of Baritoe Island. You’ll find toilet paper and human waste behind almost every tree. This is a serious health and environmental issue.
The Forest Service admits it doesn’t have the personnel nor the sanitation facilities to service the campsites they currently have. Why add to this problem?
A comprehensive plan for the lake is needed. To randomly throw long-time residents out to make room for more campsites, for which there is lack of maintenance personnel and funds, is shortsighted and destructive. Peter Bock Spokane
Blackwell project raises questions
When the Coeur d’Alene City Council hears the Blackwell Island RV park annexation proposal today, these questions should be answered:
What liability will the city assume if it approves this proposal? The property involved is in a flood plain and above an unexplored and possibly toxic land fill.
What will be the costs to the taxpayer to extend and maintain sewer and water lines to the RV park and to the large Blackwell Hill developments?
What prior agreements have been reached between city officials and private developers outside the public eye?
With the Legislature’s recent failure to allow impact fees, why is the city considering further annexation requests?
Why have city and county officials been unresponsive to petitions requesting that the Coeur d’Alene area of city impact south of the Spokane River be revoked?
City officials owe their loyalty to citizens who pay taxes for schools and support the local economy. Further, developers need to submit proposals that complement rather than destroy neighborhoods and pay their fair share of costs. The public has a right to expect the city to represent its best interests and that developers will act as responsible members of the community.
A high quality of life will only result from responsible planning and development. I expect the city to be responsive, honest and open with the public at the Blackwell Island hearing. Wes Hanson Coeur d’Alene
Leave Priest Lake leases alone
Regarding your front-page story of the reclaiming of federal lease properties at Priest Lake (March 12), I certainly empathize with Dick Russell. I find it ludicrous that the Forest Service would even suggest that their reasoning behind reclaiming these properties is to expand public usage when in reality they have no organized plan, facilities, money or the supervisory capabilities to even handle the public usage that already exists.
If the Forest Service was to remove Mr. Russell’s cabin that has been in existence for over 60 years to allow camping on his beach, they might at best establish two or three campsites. This, by the way, would be one of the very few camping areas available to the public on the entire eastern half of the island, making supervision much more difficult.
I, as a taxpayer, would feel much more comfortable knowing the Russell family, which has kept the environment clean and reduced the fire hazard by putting out errant camper fires for the past 40 years, was still keeping a watchful eye on the island, keeping it the serene, beautiful place it has always been. William J. Dunlop Jr. Spokane
AROUND SPOKANE
Library dispute must be resolved
The public library, free and open to all, is one of our nation’s great traditions. Today, for some school children in our community, that tradition is in jeopardy. Our mission as a library is being compromised because of money.’
For years citizens could use whatever library was closest, regardless of whether the library or the user was in the city or the county. Now everyone is being asked to use the library that their tax dollars go to, or pay a fee. It all sounds reasonable until you consider a classroom in a fringe area where some students are city residents and some live in the county.
The most important library user, in my opinion, is a child. Libraries can ignite a child’s natural curiosity and foster a quest for learning that will last a lifetime. To deny a child access to a library for geographic or financial reasons is a great wrong. Budgets should serve our mission, not the other way around.
The Spokane County Library District board of trustees is eager to resolve this problem so that all children can enjoy library privileges in the library nearest their homes and school. I call on my colleagues on the board of the Spokane Public Library to join our board in seeking a prompt solution to this critical community dilemma. Dennis R. Guenther, chairman Spokane County Library District board of trustees
Intersection needs a stoplight
I am a fifth-grader at Hamblen School. I live near the new South Hill Shopko. I think 44th and South Regal should have a stoplight because someone might get hurt or killed. There is a lot more traffic now.
I have a friend who lives on the other side of Regal. We used to meet on the corner where Shopko is and cross easily. Now it’s too busy. I really think we need a light. Nick Corkill Spokane
Annexation plan doesn’t make sense
This newspaper’s editorial board has urged the planners of the proposed new city in the Valley to go slowly.
Why doesn’t this board give the same advice to the city planners moving to annex a large portion of the South Side? This hasty push to annex the large Moran Prairie area at a time when a consolidated form of government is being readied for vote makes sense only to revenuehungry city bureaucrats and land-hungry developers.
The majority of people in this area are probably opposed to annexation but will be denied the right to vote by the city’s use of utility covenants. The city boasts that these covenants are legal. So was slavery and refusing women the right to vote. This aggressive use of covenants and annexation is very divisive and is one of the factors pushing the Valley into incorporation.
The wisdom of this action is surely in question. Theresa A. George Spokane
GOVERNMENT
Government-bashing not warranted
Shortly after Connecticut instituted a state income tax, 40,000 people showed up in Hartford to protest. Gov. Lowell Weicker was brave enough to show up and several people actually spat on him. At the time, the state budget was running $1 billion in the red.
No government is perfect, but I’m appalled at the level of government-bashing that’s going on. We all know our communities give us much more than they take from us. We take our parks and streets and libraries for granted. We have one of the finest fire departments I’ve seen anywhere in our country. Our city is in such good shape the fire fighters spend most of their time on medical calls. Our children have been involved in three Spokane schools and we think each of them is outstanding. I think most of our public servants are honest, dedicated and reliable, and very few are overpaid. If you want good help you’ve got to pay for it. Instead of trying to pay our public servants as little as possible, maybe we could err on the side of paying them as much as possible.
Back in Connecticut, Gov. Weicker took at $1 billion deficit and, with that much-hated income tax, balanced the budget in one year. Our personal share was about $200 - a small price to pay for a fiscally solid state.
I don’t think of taxes as an obligation but a privilege, a small gift to support our precious communities and those who serve us. Rev. Ron Baer Spokane
Sooner or later, you’ll have to pay
In regard to Richard T. Brown’s letter of March 13, I would like to make the following observation regarding the Social Security Trust Fund.
While I have never had a course in finance, it seems obvious that if you borrow money and spend it you have to pay it back from some future source, in this case taxes from all of us.
Knowing the way our politicians like to hide what we are being taxed I presume that the monies borrowed from the trust fund are not included in the deficit that they are telling us is in the trillions.
In any case, it would seem that anyone with a doubledigit IQ would be able to figure out that when money is spent it will not be replaced without additional taxes. Don Rumpel Kellogg, Idaho
Pure democracy won’t work
Regarding Saundra Patterson’s question, “Why isn’t majority ruling?” (Letters, March 16):
Majority does rule; in the voting booth on election days and again during votes taken in the U.S. House and Senate. That’s what democracy is all about. Majority does not rule our elected officials between those opportunities for voting. That would be pure democracy.
Our great country is not a democracy in its purest form. The United States is a republic, for which we stand. Sound familiar? It would require a new Constitution, or an amendment longer than our current U.S. Constitution, to allow the majority to rule our elected officials. Then it would become a waste of time, effort and money to even elect representatives.
Pure democracy won’t work. The founders knew that it wouldn’t because of previous failures in other times and places. That’s why they gave us a representative form of government.
Tom Foley correctly refused to be influenced by public opinion polls and the people voted him out of office. The sovereignty is in the people, and that is also what democracy is all about: majority rules, right or wrong. Jon J. Tuning Spokane
GOP timber bill bad, bad, bad
The Republican’s timber salvage legislation is the worst kind of big-government meddling. It is similar to communist-style central planning of industrial production. It sets arbitrary quotas at twice the level proposed by the Forest Service. It doesn’t take into account the situation in the field; some of these trees are already worthless and some of the trees may be resistant and survive.
The salvage operations will leave the forest in worse condition and produce logs of lower value.
The taxpayer does subsidize these timber sales. Contrary to Forest Service accounting, which does not include all costs, the Government Accounting Office claims the government loses money on timber sales.
The sad part is that the Republican legislation suspends environmental laws intended to curb destructive timber harvest. Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho has said that most remaining timber cannot be harvested without violating ecosystem management guidelines. Therefore, salvage logging will do significant environmental damage to habitat, mountainsides and streams.
The Republican legislation will likely harm nonsubsidized private enterprises which produce superior alternative building materials.
This low-quality timber will be dumped on the market suffering the lowest prices in four years, because traditional wood products are losing market share.
This Republican legislation is bad economics, bad for the environment, bad for the taxpayer and totally opposite to the “ideals” of the Republican revolution.
The Republicans have been a big disappointment. It is special-interest politics as usual. S.S. Howze Sagle, Idaho