Letters To The Editor

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Nethercutt deserves recognition

Editor Chris Peck’s May 19 column (“Nethercutt has grown into his role in House”) acknowledging the exceptional work by Congressman George Nethercutt is an accurate, worthy and appreciated appraisal.

Nethercutt is a bright guy with integrity who is working overtime to understand the issues. For most of us - Democrats, independents and Republicans - who are frustrated by the political system, it is refreshing to have someone who will represent all of us in an intelligent and impartial way. Thank you, Nethercutt and Peck.

Dave Hamer Spokane

What a welcome surprise

Congratulations on your positive coverage of Rep. George Nethercutt. When my friends told me about the articles I thought they were pulling my leg. I couldn’t believe The Spokesman-Review would print something positive and objective about the conservative side of things.

I quit taking the Review a year ago because of the biased reporting. I didn’t think I would ever say this, but, if you keep up the good work I might even subscribe again. Pat Murphy Spokane

Nethercutt scheme ‘garbage’

Opinion Editor John Webster’s May 20 editorial backing up Rep. George Nethercutt’s proposal to make Social Security contributions tax deductible is misplaced enthusiasm for an idea that is garbage. Nethercutt’s apparent claim that this is a suitable alternative for a hike in the minimum wage is wrong. The effect of such a scheme on the pay of persons who earn the minimum wage ranges from zero to maybe $80 per year. Most such workers pay no income tax, or a very minimal amount.

These workers need a substantial boost in income and what Nethercutt is offering is more take-home dollars for the middle class and wealthy (voters).

As far as boosting the economy, certainly, $30 billion dumped into additional take-home pay will help. But only a small percentage of that will find its way back to the U.S. Treasury. Do Nethercutt and Webster really expect that it will generate more new revenue for the Treasury than it takes out?

The argument that employers already can deduct their half of the Social Security and Medicare payment is no argument at all. Employers can deduct not only that, but indeed the whole paycheck of the employee as a business expense.

Also, if we’re going to allow such a deduction for the employee’s half, then employees must expect to have Social Security retirement benefits fully taxable when they start collecting them. There are two sides to every coin, folks.

You can do better than this, Nethercutt. Richard T. Brown Spokane

Nethercutt idea a good one

George Nethercutt’s suggestion that Social Security contributions not be taxed is a good idea.

Social Security should follow private systems, e.g. IRAs and 401(k)s. The contributions would be tax deferred, in that contributions would not be taxed but the benefits, including disability and pension payments, would be taxed 100 percent from the first dollar when obtained.

The major difficulty would be the drop in Treasury revenue adding to the deficit. An increase in taxes elsewhere is needed. Another consideration would be the taxing of all of the pension benefits because currently they are taxed at 85 percent over certain minimums. Walter A. Becker Pullman

It pays for GOP to oppose increase

An important topic, minimum wage, is being widely discussed by both major political parties and the media. Democrats strongly advocate an increase in minimum wages while the Republicans, along the lines of their major PAC contributors, are against it as “inflationary.”

Both parties acknowledge that “labor” wages are around 10 percent less than they were 10 years ago and that corporate CEOs are taking home 170 times more than the average worker.

With no minimum wage (as originated by the Democrats) the average worker entering the marketplace would be lucky to get $2 an hour.

The GOP is not only against minimum wage increases, it is against having a minimum wage. That is why, under Reagan, Republicans began exporting our industry to Third World countries, where many formerly union-made products are now manufactured at much below minimum wage levels. But, if you haven’t noticed, these products are retailed at union-made prices and under tax laws (such as tax law 936) corporations are subject to little, if any, taxation.

With manufacturing costs drastically reduced, with few or no taxes to pay and retail prices maintained at domestic union wage levels, they can well afford those large PAC contributions to the GOP, while giving CEOs outlandish salaries and perks, all at the expense of the American labor force. Andy Kelly Spokane

TALK RADIO

Rice allegations just that

Well, well, well. Staff writer Anne Windishar wants talk radio to tune into the truth.

I was one of the listeners of the simulcast with Mike Siegel and Richard Clear. I don’t remember the allegations about Norm Rice as anything but allegations.

If you and your staff writers don’t print anything but the truth, then the allegations against Coroner Dexter Amend would not be in your paper - or would they? Ray E. Peterson Spokane

Well, look who’s talking

In her May 15 editorial, Anne Windishar asked talk radio hosts to follow what she calls Rule No. 1 in journalism: “Check all the facts. Then check them again.” If ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it. Perhaps she should review the Spokesman’s coverage of the Wenatchee sex ring before you point the finger at talk radio.

Windishar further states that “radio listeners - as well as readers of newspapers and viewers of television news - deserve a medium that strives for accuracy and analysis, not lies and cynicism.” How true. The public does deserve an unbiased form of media. Unfortunately, you won’t find it at The Spokesman-Review.

The liberal bias of your paper is every bit as obvious as the conservative bias of the talk radio shows you mention. For example, Spokesman-Review articles on Medicare continually referred to Republican “cuts” in funding when Congress’ bill called for a substantial increase.

Talk radio may be biased toward conservative politics, and it may at times be cynical. However, the Spokesman is equally biased toward liberal politics. The only difference is that talk radio shows openly profess to be conservative, whereas the Spokesman attempts to fool its readers into thinking it is unbiased.

Before you try to remove the speck from your competitor’s eye, remove the plank from your own. Kevin R. Wallace Spokane

Talk radio responsive right away

Staff writer Anne Windishar’s holier-than-thou attitude toward talk radio in her May 15 editorial, “Talk radio needs to tune into truth,” is another indication of a prevalent anti-talk-radio bias in today’s newspaper industry.

While blasting Mike Siegel for airing allegations about Seattle Mayor Norm Rice, The Spokesman-Review has given Spokane County Coroner Dexter Amend the same treatment. Let’s get real. Talk radio is opinion, just like what The Spokesman-Review prints, both on and off its editorial page. The difference? At least talk radio gives disclaimers at the top of each hour that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the station or sponsors.

Why doesn’t The Spokesman-Review publish such disclaimers? I guess virtual monopolies don’t need to be accountable for their actions. Siegel apologized for his treatment of Rice.

Isn’t it time that The Spokesman-Review recognize that talk radio is the only major media outlet that is accountable to its audience through immediate response? David Anthony Spokane

A good point well made

Re, “Talk radio needs to tune into truth,” (Our View, May 15) by staff writer Anne Windishar:

We don’t always agree, for sure, but on this one we’re in solid agreement. Open, uncensored, candid dialogue, debate and even contentious disagreement are good things and are, as you so rightly suggested in your editorial, a critical tool for our system of governance.

However, innuendo, lies and baseless allegations are never tolerable, on talk radio or elsewhere.

Unfortunately, politics have become a vicious game of character assassination, as opposed to debate on the issues. Sadly, talk radio has been right in the forefront.

It’s clear that I support talk radio, but none of us should support a lack of truth in any medium of information. Nice editorial. Chris Anderson Spokane

Limbaugh the one who was right

In the May 15 editorial, “Talk radio needs to tune into truth,” staff writer Anne Windishar tells us that Rule No. 1 in journalism is to check all facts. Then check them again. This is undoubtedly a good thing.

Windishar criticizes talk radio for ignoring Rule No. 1. and tells us that Rush Limbaugh once said that there are more American Indians alive today than when Columbus arrived.

If Windishar would follow Rule No. 1 she would discover that the best estimate of the Indian population of what is now North America when Columbus arrived was 1 million. The 1990 census, according to Collier’s Encyclopedia and The World Almanac, placed current Indian population in the United States alone at 1,878,285.

So Rush was right. There are more Indians alive today than when Columbus arrived. Could it be that print journalism needs to tune into the truth? Elmer Rosenau Coeur d’Alene Editor’s note: Principals of the group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, using Bureau of Indian Affairs figures, cited Limbaugh’s statement as inaccurate in their 1995 book, “The Way Things Aren’t: Rush Limbaugh’s Reign of Error.” In subsequent writings on this matter, Limbaugh has counted in Latin American native peoples.

Republicans’ ambivalence shows

When I first read a news item on Rep. George Nethercutt’s proposal to exempt the Social Security deduction from tax I knew it came from a Republican. The May 20 editorial support of this proposal demands a response.

Apparently, neither Nethercutt nor your writer know that Social Security payments are premiums on a national insurance (vigorously opposed by the GOP) that makes generous payments to the payers upon retirement or to surviving spouse and children in the event of a contributor’s death.

Nor are they, apparently, aware that it would have about as much benefit as a soda pop a day for those in the $25,000 per annum bracket and considerably less benefit to the minimum wage earner than a dollar raise in that minimum. Meanwhile, a hefty $30 billion per annum would be added to the nation’s debt.

Why is it the party that’s always gung ho to eliminate the deficit is always in the lead in calling for cuts in taxes? Fred Meyer Coulee Dam

Plan mostly helps the well off

Rep. George Nethercutt has suggested making Social Security taxes paid by individuals an “above-the-line” tax deduction, rather than raise the minimum wage.

Surprisingly, Nethercutt’s “alternative” to the minimum wage increase does very little for minimum wage earners. Under the proposal, an upper-income working couple with a total family income of $120,000 per year would receive about $2,850 in annual tax savings. A couple earning $30,000 a year would get only about $350.

A married adult working full time and earning the present minimum wage of $4.25 an hour would not get any benefit from Nethercutt’s proposal.

Nethercutt’s proposal is not an alternative to a minimum wage increase; it is a $30 billion to $44 billion annual tax cut aimed primarily at upper-income taxpayers. Gavin J. Cooley Spokane

Minimum wage raise won’t kill jobs

I read where Rep. George Nethercutt does not support a raise in minimum wage. This does not surprise me. His alternative, no income tax on Social Security, would certainly win support from many constituents.

I’m well past minimum wage and have been for many years. I would certainly enjoy not paying income tax on Social Security taxes. Who will this help?

Minimum wage earners pay very little in Social Security taxes, unless they are working three minimum wage jobs.

Minimum wage earners pay very little income tax. Paying less income tax would be better than a raise for these people? I think not.

It would certainly help me and everybody else who may be paying in the maximum Social Security. I doubt a minimum wage earner would even feel it.

Whom are we helping here, Nethercutt?

The line of thought that a raise might eliminate jobs is false. No company is in the business of providing jobs. If production and demand require a certain level of employees, then wages will not reduce that demand and an employer will have to maintain that level. If an employer does not need that level of employment, then he will trim back, regardless of minimum wage requirements.

To say that a company is dependent on low wages to survive is an exploitation of America’s working poor.

I challenge anyone to figure a family budget for $5.25 per hour, let alone $4.25 per hour. Dave Scoville Spokane

IN THE PAPER

Bet he hates apple pie, too

Never before have I seen such an offensive, arrogant and revolting waste of our natural resources as the paper on which your editors chose to print staff cartoonist Milt Priggee’s political “cartoon” of Mother’s Day. It was yet another example of the extremist liberal propaganda that his paper chooses to promote on a daily basis.

Priggee leans so far to the left that he needs a mental crutch to keep from falling into the socialist abyss that he obviously strives to reach.

On a day that we, as one nation under God, choose to celebrate and honor the great women in our lives, it is a slap in the face of decency and these great women to run an editorial such as this.

Make no mistake, this is America and, at least for now, we all have the right and privilege to speak freely about that which moves us. Priggee, too, has that right. I simply choose not to pay for it; I am cancelling my subscription. Timothy S. Ray Chattaroy