Letters To The Editor

WASHINGTON STATE

Make taxation fair to all

Washington’s tax system is the most regressive in the nation. Our state and local taxes take a much greater share of income from middle- and low-income families than from the wealthy.

Specifically, a $28,000-income couple pays 17 percent for taxes. A $46,000-income couple pays 10.7 percent. Those in the elite top 1 percent, with an average income of $717,000, pay only 3.6 percent. Most taxpayers are cruelly squeezed to create a tax subsidy for that elite 1 percent - including the all-millionaire Mariners, Seahawks and Sonics.

A Washington couple earning $49,600 annually pays $794 more in taxes than an Idaho couple. After 40 years of taxpaying, this loss adds up to over $31,000 - a hefty price to pay for blind party loyalty. Legislative bias has created and sustains this indefensible system. It is growing. Now, we have the proposal to finance the Seahawks’ new stadium.

The solution: Eliminate or drastically reduce the sales tax, especially the most regressive of excise taxes, and enact a graduated state income tax. Forty-three states have one. The average tax rate is 6 percent. Those most able to pay, the top 1 percent, pay the highest rate. Middle-income earners are taxed less and those struggling to get by even less - a fair, economically sound system.

Our shameful system is the result of legislators following the orders of lobbyists representing the elite 1 percent with average incomes of $717,000. It is unfair, economically unsound and, in a functioning democracy, politically unwise. Arch M. Jaecks Wenatchee

West wrong by four years

In the Apr. 27 paper, an article quoted Sen. Jim West as implying that state employees and teachers had received a 7 percent pay increase in two years. I would like to take the spin out of what he said.

A biennium is a two-year period. For the 1993 to 1994 biennium, state employees received no pay raise. For the 1995-1996 biennium, state employees received a 4 percent raise. The current biennium has a 3 percent raise for the 1997- 1998 period.

This is a total of seven percent in six years.

Can Sen. West put a spin on what the inflation was for the same period of time? Nick G. Lorentz Spokane

Curtail excessive truck weight

We know the roads are getting to be in bad shape, but there are a couple of subjects haven’t been addressed in the gas tax increase proposal.

No one has mentioned increased truck weight. Not too many years ago, if you had a tandem truck, you had a weight limit of 48,000 pounds. Now, by doing a little creative calculating, such as adding extra dollies and wider tires, a tandem truck can haul that much load (a concrete truck is a good example) plus the weight of the truck.

Semi-trucks (five axles) used to have a gross weight of 72,000 pounds. Now, by adding extra axles (truck, four axles; trailer, four axles) and paying a little extra for a license, the net load is probably more than the gross used to be.

It stands to reason that when you put that much weight in such a small area, you are going to damage the roads.

Another issue is hauling heavy loads during the spring thaw. Most roads, other than interstates, were not built to be year-around roads. Why don’t we cut back on loads to, say, 30,000 gross for trucks (three axles) and 50,000 pounds for semis (five axles) in the spring, when the roads are soft. Edwin O. Weilep Spokane

SPOKANE MATTERS

Stop no-account shooters, spoilers

I support Dennis S. Casadoro’s letter, “Selfish shooters cause problems.” He talked about hunters and their children shooting their guns on state land near Nine Mile Falls, stating that they do it every weekend.

I can only imagine the amount of litter and debris left behind each weekend. Who is cleaning up this mess?

Don’t these people know that they are damaging the trees by putting nails for their targets into the trees? And when they miss, I’m sure the trees are catching the stray bullets. Trees, like humans, bleed. If enough of this goes on, these trees will eventually rot out and die.

I also live hear state-owned land, nine miles west of Deer Park, where signs are posted throughout the area saying, “no trespassing, no hunting” and “state land.” Yet we hear gunfire, heavy at times, and normally not during hunting season. I believe there are places elsewhere for people to do this type of activity.

Continuing such activity can only lead to the environmental destruction of our own state land. Soon, we will not be able to enjoy the natural beauty of this land. We as citizens need to speak up and help protect our state lands. Johnny M. Blade Deer Park

THE MILITARY

Gender doesn’t determine fitness

Having spent 14 years in the U.S. Army, I think I’m somewhat qualified to respond to letter writer Josephine N. Osborne’s opinion of women in the service (“Women don’t belong in combat,” Letters, April 29).

I spent most of my time with infantry and artillery units as an enlisted soldier, and later, as an intelligence officer and commander. I went to the field with them, did the same weapons training and slept in tents with them. We did not notice any drop in morale.

We were all - men and women - too busy doing our jobs and trying to survive to spend time contemplating “depression, confusion or weakness.” We either accomplished the mission or did not - and suffered the consequences.

I agree that women have a great place in the military. But unlike Osborne, I feel women deserve to be any place they want to be - if they can do the job - just like anyone else.

As for not being “emotionally geared for conflict,” I would caution Osborne. I’ve been there; I’ve seen many men who could not cut it, as well as many women who also failed. To eliminate a person because of perceived weakness, misconceptions and/or prejudice is not taking into consideration reality. If the man or woman can be a soldier, let them be. If they can’t, that’s what they have commanders and regulations for. Get them out. Rosanne M. Anderson Cheney

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

We must get back to self-reliance

“A democracy can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury; it then collapses over loose fiscal policy.” (Alexander Tyler).

Besides the big entitlement programs, recent news indicates many people want public funds for building sculptures, stores, stadiums and for repairing flooded golf courses and towns.

A Grand Forks resident said President Clinton shouldn’t visit unless he will pay for all the flood damage. (Apparently, charity and insurance are no longer needed.)

It wasn’t always such. Our nation was founded on the idea that government exists only to prevent harm from other nations and between individuals in our country.

James Madison said, “I could not undertake to lay my finger on that article in the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. And if they once broke the line laid down before them, it was impossible to say to what lengths they might go, or to what extremities this practice might be carried.”

It is becoming clear. Citizens who can’t get voluntary funding or donations for their interests now turn to government, knowing it will force people to contribute through taxation. This money appears to be “free,” as the user never has to face those from whom it is taken.

When considering government funding, ask yourself: Am I willing to force my neighbor to pay for this? Then provide that answer to the government representative involved.

Hopefully, this will help our government to last. Dale E. Jenne Medical Lake

Representative democracy perverted

Why is the average person so distrustful of politics? Undoubtedly, it’s due to how far we’ve strayed from our original concept of each elected official representing constituents’ desires, needs and concerns.

The multi-party system was supposed to provide the nation with the best talents and brain power available as our elected officials, not to twist legislation to benefit the controlling party’s most affluent contributors.

The modern concept, apparently, is to enact legislation that appears to benefit the constituents but, in the fine print, benefits mainly the affluent at the expense of middle- and lower-income people.

Current GOP strategy is to make cuts affecting everyone. That is, Republicans will drastically reduce welfare and entitlements, and will counter that by reducing inheritance and capital gains taxes. It really will affect everyone as the money saved from entitlements will have to make up the revenues lost from inheritance and capital gains tax cuts or elimination. What kind of fairness is that?

Surely, the average legislator realizes his home district isn’t 100 percent Republican (or Democratic), but voters whose tax money finances his position. No, the Continental Congress didn’t serve at the whims of political PACs and it’s time to revert to the original concept: serving the people who elected them to Congress, not just the affluent and the PACs.

Isn’t it time to take the “con” out of Congress? Andy P. Kelly Spokane

GOP guilty of false advertising

Republicans say theirs is the party for the working man. A working family making $38,000 a year pays 8 percent of its earnings in Social Security taxes while a family making $380,000 pays only 1.5 percent. If Republicans really represent the working man and believe so strongly in flat taxes, why don’t they begin here?

Social Security withholding is a regressive tax (the more you make, the lower percentage you pay). Republicans don’t seem to think this is a problem. At the same time, they are actively trying to decrease the inheritance taxes on wealthy estates. They are up in arms because estates of more than $600,000 must pay an inheritance tax (the first $600,000 is already tax-free).

Are you in a working family? How big is your “estate”?

Republican policy couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that 90 percent of all political contributions are derived from the wealthiest 1 percent of the population, either through direct contributions or their positions in corporations, could it? Vern P. Stevens Moscow, Idaho

Face it, treaty is fatally flawed

Staff writer Jim Kershner, in Sunday’s Bottom Lines feature, wondered about the 26 senators who voted against the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) treaty.

Golly, Kershner asks, who wouldn’t want to ban chemical weapons?

Kershner’s view of the CWC, while satirical, should be assumed to be borne of his sincere belief that this flawed treaty will make the world safer. His ignorance and naivete, while disturbing enough, are made more so when we consider he is employed ostensibly for the purpose of informing others.

The CWC has been categorically rejected as a flawed and dangerous treaty by three former defense secretaries, former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick and more than 75 respected generals and government officials. Why? Are they in favor of chemical weapons? No. One of many reasons is that this treaty requires all signatories to share and exchange equipment, material, scientific and technological information concerning means of protection against chemical weapons. That means Iran, which signed this treaty, will have the legal right to analyze our chemical weapons defense systems. Iran is the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Feel safer now?

The CWC’s flaws aside, consider the historic absence of influence of treaties in general. Chemical warfare is already banned by the 1925 Geneva Convention. The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 even banned war altogether. Germany happily signed this treaty and eight years later, Hitler’s troops happily crossed the Rhine. Will the rogue states in this decade give us eight years to bask in this latest treaty’s phony security? Jeff G. Davenny Clarkston, Wash.

THE ENVIRONMENT

Respecting nature is in our interest

In response to an April 20 article, if we must wait until “Nov. 1, 1999, to implement new rules, or face an immediate endangered species listing,” the salmon will not be an endangered species any more. Instead, it will be part of American history - extinct.

Salmon are part of our ecosystem, our natural lifestyle and are important to our American Indians’ natural heritage. The salmon is a part of our ongoing process of evolution, balancing our natural habitat of fish and wildlife. If we don’t take action now, before we know it, it will be too late.

If only we knew how to be more careful toward our ecosystem there would be no problem concerning endangered species. We are the dominator of this Earth and we should be responsible enough to see our own problems and resolve them.

Animals are animals, but we should not treat them with less respect just because they don’t have the ability to think as we humans do. Loggers should be more careful when cutting down trees, not merely because profit is what’s on their minds. Without nature, we wouldn’t survive on this Earth. Therefore, we might as well start preserving now rather than waiting and being subject to the consequences of our own actions. Edgar Ariellano Tamayo Cheney

Earth Day story just more hype

As I looked through the April 22 newspaper, Earth Day, I was surprised to find only one article about the well-being of our planet.

I was anxious to see how all the things that needed to be said could be condensed into one article. I prepared for the end-all in environmental discussions. Instead, what I found myself reading was a self-promoting ad by the CEO of a chemical company. The message extolled the virtues of chemical fertilizers, and even managed to drop the name of the product to possible consumers.

Every day, the public is blinded by huge corporations’ claims of concern for the environment. Earth Day should be used as an opportunity to send a new message to the public. Articles on alternative fuels and organic gardening should have found their way into the paper instead of the same tired, false environmentalism we’ve seen every day of our lives.

There are ways to live that do not require chemical fertilizers and fossil fuel-burning vehicles. If more people were aware of these environmentally helpful alternatives, there might be some real change in the way people live their lives.

A rare chance to educate Earth-conscious readers was missed and instead given to an industry that manages to send its misleading message every day of the year. R. Kanyon Anderson Cheney

PEOPLE AND ANIMALS

Circus still no friend of animals

In regard to Ringling Bros. executive Andy Ireland’s response (Roundtable, April 7) to my statements in Doug Clark’s column, I feel compelled to go more in depth on Ringling’s treatment of captive animals.

Not many people are aware that Ringling opposed 1989 California legislation that would have outlawed the use of electric shock devices on elephants, withholding food, water or rest to train them, or punishment resulting in the breaking of an elephant’s skin. In 1993, Ringling opposed legislation to limit the time an elephant could be confined in chains in a 24-hour period (19 hours a day is the current legal standard). Does this sound like an organization that truly has the animals’ best interests at heart?

Almost nothing has improved for the animals since I was with the circus 17 years ago. I visited the show last August. Elephants were chained by two legs in the train cars and the handlers still use sharp, metal-tipped bullhooks to “train” them. One only has to visit the circus train to see this.

With their many millions of dollars, there is no reason why Ringling Bros. can’t create a successful circus without animals. I, for one, will continue to expose the tragedy behind the scenes to create this change if it takes the rest of my life. Kelly J. Tansy Spokane