Letters To The Editor

Washington state

Opposing 695 - it helps to be ignorant

They say “ignorance is bliss,” and in the case of the Sept. 13 letter, “look carefully at consequences,” this surely applies. If the writer had been out there collecting signatures for Initiative 695, he would have talked to a lot of people who can afford new cars but can’t afford the annual tab fees for them. This overtaxed state is 25 percent lower in new car registrations than the nation. Why do you think that is? It couldn’t be our high registration fees, could it?

If this letter writer would do a little research, he would know that the license tab fees addressed by I-695 (2 percent of the state budget) does not fund education, colleges and universities. The state has a surplus of $1 billion and the counties and cities have a surplus of more than $3 billion. This should more than fund the essential programs the politicians say will be cut. Don’t you think trimming the fat and prioritizing would make up this small amount of money?

To say that the state will fall into the big black hole and all essential services will stop, you have to believe the rhetoric that the opponents of I-695 are spouting. They want to maintain their monopoly in Olympia, control the Legislature and do not want the common taxpayer having any say in how tax money - our money - is spent.

Find out the facts for yourself. They will show you that only a yes vote for I-695 is the way to go. Alex Crosswhite Spokane

695 is a bad deal - don’t go for it

Voters need to carefully examine Initiative 695. Appearances are that it lowers license tab rates to a single low fee. That’s great for people with newer or multiple vehicles but not really a benefit for people with older cars of less value.

Interestingly, the effects of the initiative would be to eliminate needed road construction and improvements necessary for a vibrant economy that supports jobs, growth and recreation. It will also reduce required services everywhere in the state and at all levels of government.

The worst part of I-695 is the add-on sections that require public votes for any new taxes or setting of fees at any level of government. Doesn’t that really wipe out the need for our representative form of government? Don’t we elect people to define priorities, meet societal needs and apply taxes to pay for those services? Why should we tie our hands this way with this cleverly conceived anarchistic initiative?

Voters need to analyze I-695 carefully and not be seduced by its appearances. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I’m voting no. Pete J. Kleweno Spokane

If Republicans want it, beware

Uh-oh, folks! Time to start watching your backs. The GOP politicians have begun to endorse Initiative 695, and you know that when the politicos back anything that might be beneficial to the taxpayer, it is time to watch for the downward thrust of the knife.

What’s their real agenda? Food for thought, hmm? E. Timothy Crowley Evans, Wash.

695 would mostly benefit the well off

The State GOP Committee’s endorsement of Initiative 695 is irresponsible and a smokescreen. The “average” working person will not save approximately $200 per year in taxes! That figure is a statistical average. Far more persons will save less than those saving that much or more. People paying less than $230 in excise taxes per vehicle far outnumber those paying more.

When you figure in the motor homes and other luxury vehicles paying over $900 per year, it becomes obvious that I-695 benefits not the “average working person,” but the rich who flaunt their wealth in obscenely expensive, polluting road hazards!

Further, to take such a large slice out of local budgets with no corresponding decrease in governmental duties, many of which are mandated by state and federal law, without providing a workable alternative is disastrous.

I challenge each candidate to state their position on I-695 and provide detailed plans as to how they would replace the transportation, law enforcement, fire and other safety funds that will disappear if I-695 passes.

I challenge voters to ask themselves realistically if they’re willing to pay for endless, needless elections and if they’re willing to cut back on transportation, law enforcement and safety to pay for their nonexistent $200 per year savings.

If you’re willing to reduce the funds to build and maintain our roads, law enforcement and fire services, as well as running to the polls constantly to micromanage every fee increase, then vote for I-695. I’m not willing to play that game, so I’ll vote no on I-695 Donald D. Jones Spokane

Think of it as road destruction measure

Initiative 695 reverses Referendum 49 and takes back the voter-approved funding for $2 billion in desperately needed transportation improvements. Potholes will get bigger, choke points won’t get fixed and needed safety improvements will be delayed. I-695 will stop progress on transportation projects and will make traffic congestion even worse. Kelle J. Antonellis Spokane

Agriculture

Farm act sows seeds of shortage, ruin

I saw where Rep. George Nethercutt thinks that, with a few changes, the Freedom to Farm Act will succeed. I submit that neither Nethercutt nor anyone else in government has any idea how many farmers will be financially ruined by this law. Nobody knows how much marginal land will come out of production and off the tax rolls, nor how many small towns will die.

America should not be jumping into this abyss.

What if the United States somehow coerces the rest of the world into going along with this “ag globalization” scheme? If I understand supply side economics, prosperity will come only to the survivors of this ordeal and only after the food surpluses turn to shortages. If food shortages are part of the plan, what will that do to the poor countries?

Let’s pretend that, sometime in the future, both the United States and Bangladesh are short of rice; there’s only enough to satisfy one. Which country, do you think, will get the rice? When Time and Newsweek show photographs of Americans who obviously have never missed a meal in their lives alongside pictures of little Bangladesh kids who are nothing more than walking skeletons, what will the world think of us then?

I believe having a little extra food around is good. We must learn to cooperate more with the other food-producing countries to keep the surpluses at manageable levels. We could do a better job of distribution as well. Efforts to solve our farm problems should be along these lines.

Any government policy that promotes food shortages is immoral. We should stop it right now. Thomas Osowski Rathdrum, Idaho

Irrigation project well worth keeping

The history of the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project was well portrayed in the Sept. 19 Spokesman-Review article, “Water works.” However, the author did not give the story the ending it deserved.

Not all of we original settlers went broke like Farm in the Day winner Donald Dunn. He should have written about how very productive the Columbia Basin Project turned out to be, or how hundreds of thousands of people live and work here instead of the cities.

The Columbia Basin Irrigation Project has been under attack by activist groups and journalists. The current administration is not sympathetic to irrigation projects. The Bureau of Reclamation is presently talking of taking some water away from this project.

Somehow, news has to get out that irrigation benefits many people besides farmers. Since 40 percent of the food comes from irrigation, it is necessary. Diverting water from the rivers is far better than drying up the aquifers and farming, and in marginal rainfall.

With millions of acres of farm land being urbanized, in a few years people will be very grateful for President Roosevelt and Sen. Dill’s dream. That is, if we still have irrigation water here. Robert Hardin Moses Lake

Idaho viewpoints

Sandpoint shouldn’t repeat mistakes

Does Sandpoint really want to duplicate the traffic problems of Coeur d’Alene, with its ever-increasing traffic lights and four-lane highway blight?

It’s hard to understand why the Sandpoint Chamber of Commerce would support Coeur d’Alene efforts to oppose the Cascadia highway corridor through Washington, which would greatly reduce truck traffic through Sandpoint. Coeur d’Alene already has been ruined by unbridled commercialism. Do we want the same for Sandpoint?

The Cascadia route may be a godsend for Sandpoint by siphoning off enough truck traffic to make the proposed Sand Creek bypass unnecessary.

Truck traffic does not provide much economic benefit to Sandpoint because most truckers try to avoid the high price of fuel here. Tourism is not drawn to the land of four-lane highways but rather is attracted to the unique beauty and environmental quality of Lake Pend Oreille.

Any saving of U.S. highway funding for Idaho by opposing the Washington corridor is unlikely to benefit Sandpoint. Let us realize that our interests are different from those of Coeur d’Alene. Ed C. Bittner Sagle