Letters To The Editor

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Debt reality takes edge off good news

I heard President Clinton outline how very wonderful our economy is doing and that we have a big money surplus he plans to use to make things even better. He did a great job on his delivery.

For a short time, I felt good about everything going so well. Then I remembered that we have a national debt that exceeds $5.6 trillion and is growing. There was no mention of that in the speech I heard. Now I am frightened, because I know I cannot possibly pay my share of that overwhelming debt.

E.D. Scamahorn Colville, Wash.

If it’s government, it’s wrong, bad

Listening to the Clinton State of the Union Address on the radio, with the continual canned-like applause, was an insult to any thinking person. Everybody in the nation was Paul who was getting all the benefits robbed from Peter.

The $1,000 tax credit for elderly care is a joke. While federal politicians have million dollar pensions and unlimited health care, this credit will buy Americans about 15 days of care in a nursing home. Education is another example of the government first running a system into the ground.

We are also led to believe that our good economy is the result of government action. This is not true. People of goodwill who are able to trade freely make a good economy. Just think what the economy would be like if we had real free trade, and the government would “just get out of the way,” as economist Milton Friedman once said.

Speeches like Clinton’s should be feared, and the Republicans haven’t anything better to offer. As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis said in 1928, “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial … the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Jack Satkoski Sagle, Idaho

Boomers may get their just desserts

The fear of whether or not Social Security will be available to baby boomers seems to be the No. 1 issue on the collective boomer mind these days. The idea has been raised that since there are not enough wage earners behind the boomer generation, that Social Security cannot be supported as it stands.

I wonder if anyone has given any thought to the idea that maybe the baby boomers are responsible for this dilemma? Perhaps if the boomers had allowed the generation behind it to live, there would be enough wage earners to support their old age? It seems that consequences do indeed follow every action.

What now? Linda J. Reed Spokane

Clinton attitude typifies what’s wrong

In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton indicated that returning surplus federal funds to the taxpayer was a consideration, but it seemed to me he doubts the public could be trusted to spend it correctly.

That characterizes the philosophy of at least the last 60 years. Our governments do not trust us to set goals for ourselves, to set priorities for ourselves, to think for ourselves, to provide for ourselves.

Each and every one of us ought to be offended, insulted and outraged. No matter what our IQ or our reasoning ability, and no matter what mistakes we make, individually, we need the satisfaction and confidence of fending for ourselves.

This arrogance of government over the individual has resulted in laws against putting one’s self in harm’s way and in laws to provide for us. With time, because we are law-abiding and complacent people, we lose the capacity for taking risks and for taking care of ourselves. So we now capitulate to socialism in medical care, education, retirement planning, housing and care for our elderly - all in the name of caring for those few who are unable to care for themselves.

Surely, you have the intelligence and pride to take care of your family without governmental advice and funding! Philip C. Thayer Nine Mile Falls

Can senators be hauled up short?

The U.S. Senate is in closed-door negotiations, the people do not know what is discussed and the subject is not national security. If these same senators do not carry the proceedings to the up or down vote on impeachment, are they subject to recall in their individual states for not doing their sworn duty? I. Merle Iverson Spokane

Review gives Quayle an even break

Kudos to The Spokesman-Review for a great article on Dan Quayle’s announcement that he wishes to run for president in the year 2000.

As I watched Quayle making his intentions known, a feeling of easiness overcame me. I feared that The Review would: 1, run a paltry one or two sentences about the announcement; 2, revert to the 1988 or 1992 media crucifixion of Quayle; or 3, run no story at all. What happened is that they published a decent-sized write-up of Quayle’s announcement without a hint of sarcasm or belittlement.

I’m a strong believer in the message Quayle embodies. Namely, tax cuts, strong national defense and taking care of the middle class. I also admire the fact that he walks the path or morality and decency, something the current occupant of the White House has never been able to do. I intend to support Quayle’s quest for the Republican nomination and his dismantling of Gore for the presidency. Thanks for giving the guy a chance to show everyone what he’s capable of doing for America. James E. Reynolds Spokane

Taxpayers due for a little payback

As usual, President Clinton is looking for more ways to start social programs with our money. And to make his polls higher. Just for once, I would like to see Washington, D.C., send back the money that is overpaid by the taxpayer. Dave Alverson Rathdrum

LAW AND JUSTICE

Good to see tables turned on bad guys

I read in the paper recently about how the 71 felons living in the West Central neighborhood claim they’re afraid of the people who live around them.

Those ex-cons should tell us how it feels to be watched and feared. You get back what you put out! I’m glad you felons are scared. You should be.

On the news recently I watched a report about how in Europe they have a procedure called chemical castration, which inhibits the male body from producing testosterone. Why can’t we have that here? Tami N. Sorensen Spokane

Basic freedom takes precedence

For better or worse, the city of Coeur d’Alene has no chance of stopping the Aryans from holding their annual march. Freedom of assembly is guaranteed by the First Amendment. If Coeur d’Alene were to succeed in banning the Aryan parade, how could we stop a similar group of radicals from banning the Martin Luther King Jr. march here in Spokane? David W. Paulson Spokane

State has tied its own hands

The 21st Century Crime Bill proposal in the State of the Union speech includes a warning: No drug-taking on parole. If you want to keep your freedom you must stay away from drugs.

Forty-five other states, having indeterminate sentencing, can include this prohibition in the legally binding parole agreement. It is signed by the inmate prior to release on parole. If violated, the parole board can return the offender to prison and re-fix their indeterminate term to include appropriate treatment.

Not true in Washington. The Legislature abolished the parole board and enacted the determinate, or fixed, sentencing procedure effective July 1, 1984. This was in spite of a professional parole system which was over 70 percent successful and it created the demand for new prisons. Dr. A. LaMont Smith retired professor of criminology (U.C. Berkeley), Spokane

IN THE PUBLIC EYE

End Senate nonsense; Leave it to courts

I applaud Sen. Slade Gorton’s efforts to end the impeachment trial in the Senate as soon as possible. The House managers talk as if there is some constitutional “duty” to have a trial and convict. I have recently re-read the Constitution and see nothing in it about any such duty.

The Senate’s duty is merely to consider the charges. Since the Constitution provides for double jeopardy in these impeachment cases, the Senate’s only duty is to determine whether or not the individual is a threat to the Republic. The Senate’s duty is most certainly not to administer justice or punishment to such an individual; that is left up to the courts, and rightfully so.

I do not see President Clinton as any threat to our democracy or as one who has usurped any powers. Therefore, he should not be convicted. Let the courts deal with his alleged perjury and/or obstruction of justice in an arena far better suited to it than the U.S.Senate. James Jopson Newman Lake

Clinton, the man, blew it again

During his presidency’s most successful week, Bill Clinton missed two opportunities to mature toward greatness. In his dog-and-pony-show State of the Union Address, he absorbed through magical osmosis the heroism of others: civil rights, war, humanitarian and sports legends, as well as his aggrieved wife. He also pledged billions of taxpayer dollars to purchase the allegiance of innumerable constituencies.

Meanwhile, his lawyers demonstrated to the Senate that, viewed under high-powered microscope, Clinton didn’t technically commit perjury or obstruct justice. The naked eye, however, sees a different truth. Clinton has a long history of marital infidelity about which he repeatedly lies to family, friends, foes and adoring public. He also uses political power and manipulative charm to cover his tracks.

To me, since they don’t endanger the country, these are not impeachable offenses. They are examples of human weaknesses with which we all struggle. But sometimes it is through such struggles that people transcend frailty.

Imagine the president having approached the State of the Union with a heavy heart instead of smug charisma, his Senate trial with candor in place of brilliant legal mincing; having courageously admitted that, technicalities aside, he is guilty; and having humbly asked for the honor to continue leading our nation with his considerable skills.

I don’t know if that approach would have saved his presidency or prevented legal jeopardy. But it might have been the beginning of his personal transition from popular celebrity and perennial winner into great man. Too bad. Michael M. McCarthy Spokane

People have president they deserve

I am dismayed by poll results regarding the impeachment trial that show most Americans care nothing about the proceedings. This attitude is graphically illustrated in Colleen M. Long’s letter (Jan. 26), in which she decries the TV coverage of the Senate trial (correctly viewed as the “trial of the century”). Long states, “I do not care who the president chooses to be intimate with or if he lied about it. Did it affect me? No.” Her complaint is that the TV trial coverage interferes with her soap operas, for God’s sake!

Poll results reveal only 18 percent of the public watched the first three days, when the House managers presented their opening statements. A mere 20 percent watched during the following three days, when Democrats rebutted. What a deplorable commentary on the collective intelligence of most people in this nation! God forbid that serious debate before the Senate about removing the president should interfere with the slackjawed viewing of some witless soap opera.

If this is truly representative of the American electorate, it confirms the adage that we deserve the government we get, including elected leaders who are known cheats and perjurers.

It’s not Slick Willie we need be ashamed of - it is ourselves. P.G. Wilson Hayden Lake, Idaho

OTHER TOPICS

Y2K: You can scoff now but …

Doug Clark’s Jan. 17 Y2K column was comical, but where does he get his information?

The Y2K neighborhood meeting he attended merely fueled his satire. If Clark is sick of all the Y2K “gloomy forecasts,” maybe true inquiry into the facts will result in balanced concern.

The only informed assessment of Y2K comes by researching data from more than one source. There are many and varied opinions. Our own government, in a short timeframe of one week, issued conflicting statements about Department of Defense’s Y2K readiness. A Jan. 14 Associated Press article quoted Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre as announcing, “As of Dec. 31, 1998, the Pentagon had certified that 81 percent of “mission critical” computer systems (DoD) were ready for the arrival of 2000.” Yet on Dec. 24, 1998, the department’s inspector general released Report No. 99-059, Summary of DoD Year 2000 Conversion, containing this statement, “The DoD acknowledges that the year 2000 conversion poses a high risk for a very wide range of DoD functions and organizations and that the conversion process to date has been insufficient.”

Conflicting reports are widespread - all the more reason why people need to be prudent in preparing for a possible disruption to basic services come 2000. Clark and other Y2K scoffers may want to do some homework. If the chips really go down, it will be too late for zaniness. Cindy Scinto Greenacres

Octuplet mother cartoon right-on

Re: Letter by Denise Stripes, “Cartoon an insult to brave mother.”

Stripes has got the point of reference askew. God did tell these people not to have children by denying them the opportunity for natural fertility. It was science that created the “litter,” not God. There will be public outrage when science creates such spectacles in the future.

The cartoon was astute public commentary.

David Cazel Coeur d’Alene

Owner real cause of dog’s discomfort

It angered me that Renee Roehl would write to the paper in an effort to gain sympathy for the pepper spraying of her dog (Your Turn, Jan. 23). I’m amazed she would try to blame another person for her flagrant disregard of the law.

I understand the reason the other dog owner used the spray. There are many times I wish I carried pepper spray with me. I still have a scar on my leg, the result of an unleashed dog that approached my leashed pet. It seemed innocent at first but two seconds later, I was in the middle of a fight as the other owner sat watching, thinking his dog was “too friendly” to be leashed.

Another time, a neighbor’s cat came out of the bushes and tried to swat one of my leashed dogs on the face. A split second later, my dog had the cat in her mouth. The cat got away with a bruised leg but the owners threatened to take legal action against us for veterinary expenses because somehow they felt I was responsible for their loose pet.

The lady in your story might have had similar experiences, and tried to stop a problem before it began.

Leash laws are meant to protect everyone from unwanted problems, incidents and accidents.

I do feel bad that the dog suffered needlessly as a result of its owner’s wanton disregard of the law. I hope she has learned a valuable lesson. The leash law is not meant to be ignored at will. Pamela D. Dabolt Oakesdale, Wash.

What’s called for is higher wages

Re: “A Changing City,” (Jan. 6). I think you are overlooking the obvious. Most people in Coeur d’Alene and the rest of Idaho make such a lousy wage, they can’t afford to shop like the tourists. Maybe it’s time Idaho and Coeur d’Alene started looking at improving the lives of their citizens. I think it would benefit both the businesses and the people of Idaho. Paul W. Carter Newport, Wash.