Online only letters
Money for boondoggles
With all due disrespect
Editor, The Times:
I want to commend The Times for “Ramp up or crash down” [Times, Neal Peirce syndicated column, Oct. 22]. Thank God we still have freedom of the press in this country.
A majority of Congress, along with 11 members our state’s congressional delegation have engaged in the practice of selling their influence for a few thousand dollars here and there.
The worst offender is Congressman Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton, followed in order by Washington Democratic Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, Reps. Rick Larsen, D-Lake Stevens, Adam Smith, D-Tacoma, Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, Dave Reichert, R-Auburn, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Spokane, Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, and Jim McDermott, D-Seattle.
Sen. Murray has represented herself as a “soccer mom in tennis shoes.” Rep. McDermott proclaimed that “this is a country that worships at the altar of the free enterprise system, and so Congress is reflective of that culture.”
There are so many aspects of this articles that deeply bothered me, none more so than the fact that members of Congress would sell out their integrity and the safety of our sons, daughters, husbands and wives who freely volunteered for military service to our country.
The article identified more than $52 billion in earmarked funding in 2005. Most of that money was wasted at the expense of legitimate budget funding. Supposedly worthwhile needs were taken out of the approved budget and supplanted with a type of graft.
I have zero confidence that Congress will abolish this corrupt practice, nor will the members enforce it with legal penalties. Since they can’t curb their temptation for these under-the-table campaign contributions, perhaps we need to eliminate it for them.
Perhaps we could use a small portion of the $52 billion wasted on the earmarked boondoggles to publicly fund political campaigns and force the incumbents and challengers alike to limit their spending to the stipend distributed from that fund.
I do know that one alternative is our vote. My vote, unlike these politicians’, is not for sale. I will not waste my privileged vote on a candidate who discredits public interest and trust.
Finally, I am insulted that Congress members offer flimsy excuses for their actions. Do they think we are that stupid? We will be, only if we continue to return them to the office they have dishonored.
The article was a wake-up call for me.
- William Rowley, EllensburgOut of sight and in jail
Companies that want favors donate large sums of money to politicians and receive special treatment called earmarks. Is that about it? In more direct language, they bribe politicians with money and gifts for special treatment. I think I understand now.
We should arrest all these crooks and put them in jail. That’s exactly where they all belong.
Which honest, taxpaying American citizen wants to pay income taxes to a system that allows dishonest people to redirect the public treasury for their sole benefit? Lock them up; why do we tolerate this? Let’s get them out of there.
- Dave Page, EdmondsBattle royal
The Times is to be commended for “Ramp up or crash down” and “$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted” [News, Oct. 14].
The news media frequently report on how much money various candidates for an office have raised, as if the amount of money is an accurate indicator of who will win the election.
Unfortunately they’re often right! Special interests give tons of money to a candidate, who, when elected, returns the favor. To hell with the individual voter!
If all else fails, vote for the candidate who raised the least money. He or she probably has the fewest debts to repay.
Years ago, when I was one of the instructors of a Boeing practical politics class, we used to discuss the fact that sometimes you need - no matter what your political leanings are - to “throw the rascals out!”
Earmarking is just a small part of the problem. Too many of us vote for the candidate who promises to suck the most money out of the rest of the federal budget for local projects that might be nice, but we don’t want them badly enough to pay for them ourselves.
If the big suckers get elected, they call a news conference to beat their chests about providing money for a new bridge or Ping-Pong center, and many naive voters think they got a good deal. In fact, instead of just paying for our own project, we are likely paying for projects in 49 other states, whose residents also didn’t want them all that badly, not to mention a federal service charge.
Where do people think the money for all these boondoggles comes from?!
Can you imagine a country where representatives from various states come together to deal with passing laws that benefit all its citizens, while states and local governments that understand and whose citizens may benefit from local projects are allowed to deal with them. Why, that may not have happened since 1776!
- Gary McGavran, Bellevue
Road to perdition
The Times’ recommendation to reject Proposition 1 may be sound, based on the cost-effectiveness of the plan. But the reasoning for doing so is so flawed on so many levels as to boggle the mind.
The Times’ argument is based around the observation that “what the people want is a plan to reduce congestion.” Brilliant! News flash: “the people” also want a genuine Rolex, a balanced budget, fully funded Social Security, an end to the trade deficit, free health care and a tax cut.
The truth is, free-flowing roads are a luxury item, and one that is much more valuable to some than to others. Congestion pricing at least acknowledges this fact and distributes a scarce commodity to those who value it most - though it’s far from a perfect solution in a democratic society.
The Times further asserts that “the surest way to reduce congestion on roads is to build more lanes.” This assertion flies in the face of the most basic principles of transportation planning. Since the ’60s, it’s been pretty obvious that traffic expands to fill available space until congestion is the same or worse. Congestion relief, if any, is temporary at best.
There are ways to reduce congestion. Simultaneous bankruptcy of Microsoft and Boeing would probably do it. Perhaps an industrial accident spreading radioactive contamination throughout the city. But I’m pretty sure “the people” would think the cure was worse than the disease.
Of all the reasonable goals for a comprehensive transportation plan, reducing congestion is not one of them. What the region is seeking is the optimal level of congestion; the balance point at which a marginal increase in auto traffic pushes existing trips to alternative modes and vice versa.
What is needed is reasonable and widespread access to multimodal alternatives, from walking to biking, to busing, to light-rail, to car- or van pools and other creative solutions. An increase in population density and congestion, as well in gas prices, is already resulting in changes in transportation choices and behavior, as “As traffic gets nastier, many of us are shifting gears” [Local News, Oct. 15] so aptly demonstrates. We need to be smart about encouraging this trend.
To suggest to voters that a plan to reduce congestion is even theoretically possible, much less desirable, is irresponsible and misleading in the extreme. There may be many good reasons to vote against Proposition 1, but holding out for congestion reduction is not one of them.
- Eric Kuhner, Bainbridge IslandArmenian resolution
Interests at heart
“U.S. lobbies Turkey for restraint” [News, Oct. 15] indicates that part of Turkey’s annoyance with the United States stems from the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s approval of a resolution denoting the Turkish-Armenian violence in about 1915 as genocide against the Armenians. The article also asserts that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hopes to push the resolution through the full House.
Why is Congress - this is not a partisan issue - wasting its time on a moot policy question when all of the actors in the aforesaid violence are long dead? The violence is of historical importance, and it should be left to historians, the best of whom can perhaps provide some guidance for the future.
Congress has no credibility regarding the issue and its meddling has only hurt our international efforts. Worse, the resolution has only come to life in the hope of political gains. The best interests of the country as a whole prove to be secondary to garnering votes and contributions.
We might ask if the Armenian lobby, as well as many other lobbies, have the welfare of the U.S. as their primary interest.
- Gary Box, Seattle”Good thinking, lefties”
I suspect for the Democrats who voted in favor of declaring the Armenian deaths genocide, it was simply a backdoor attempt to disrupt U.S. relations with Turkey, an ally in the war on terror, and thus cause problems with the Iraq war.
Whether the deaths were genocide or not is somewhat of a semantic debate.
Typical liberal or left thinking and behavior. I wonder how many Kurds, Turks, Iraqis, Americans and others will die as a result of this. Good thinking, lefties.
- Michael Shorb, EverettA noble prize
Divided we stand
The citation for the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to former Vice President Al Gore said: “He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.”
Gee, someone who can unite the world? Someone who can convince the world that a particular course of action is in the world’s best interest? What’s the term - a uniter, not a divider?
What a great president he would have… Oh, right, he’s the guy who got the most votes. Seems Americans chose the right guy back then after all. Too bad the Supreme Court didn’t agree.
- Bert Schulz, RedmondAnd world peace
Many people fail to see how global warming relates to the Nobel Peace Prize. The effects of climate change are having a negative impact on many societies, and causing or fueling local struggle. The crisis in Darfur, for example, is primarily predicated upon the desertification of that region, and the scarcity of water for farming.
As the process accelerates, we are likely to see massive migrations and global upheaval. Tomorrow’s peace and security may well rest on what we do today to mitigate our impact on the climate. Al Gore is deserving of this award for raising the profile of this extremely important and controversial issue, which he has been doing consistently for more than 20 years.
- Evan Sutton, SeattleNobel rolling in his grave
Alfred Nobel must be rolling over in his increasingly warming grave to hear of Al Gore’s recent accomplishment.
Gore has masterfully mixed politics and sensationalism, all the while ignoring a contrary and greater weight of authority regarding historical climate cycles. He is beyond shame on this issue, as he utterly lacks the credentials, educational or experiential.
Gore may have his Nobel and his Oscar but he should know that all that glitters is not global warming.
- Jim Rosenberger, Seattle