Legislators shaking in their boots?

Thank you Prof. James N. Gregory for your informational commentary on Tim Eyman [“Rejection of Eyman empowers reform of state’s finances,” Opinion, guest commentary, Nov. 18].

I had no idea how much power Eyman had over our state government. In the past five years just two of his five amendments passed, and evidently these amendments have caused our legislators to shake in their boots.

Whether I agree or disagree with Eyman, at present this is still a free country and we still have free speech and choice. Evidently we have not elected the right legislators to resolve our tax problems despite the Tim Eymans of the world.

Who can we blame next?

— Malva Anderson, Covington

Keep your day job, Gregory

According to James N. Gregory, “Most state revenue comes from sales tax, meaning that those with small incomes pay a greater percentage of it in taxes than those with large incomes.”

It doesn’t mean that at all, and it is fortunate that Gregory is a professor of history and not of math.

One critical item that he left out was that food is not subject to sales tax.

Since those with small incomes pay a much greater percentage of their income on food, it is very likely that those with very small incomes actually pay a smaller percentage of their income on state sales taxes than those with larger incomes.

The actual percentage of sales tax per income is based on what percentage of one’s income is spent on taxable items. The extreme example would be a person on subsistence income that pays 100 percent of their income on tax-free food and therefore they would pay zero percentage of their income on sales tax.

In that example, every other person that spent any money on a taxable item would pay a greater percentage.

If a person spends a greater portion of their income on taxable items than another person then they pay a greater percentage in taxes than the other person regardless of the amount of the incomes.

This is a math question, not a sociology question.

— Richard C. Shell, Woodinville

Response to Lynne Varner’s ‘second opinion’

Columnist Lynne Varner has poor arguments for criticizing the new guidelines for breast-cancer screening [“Mammograms: a second opinion,” Opinion, Nov. 18].

Saying they fly in the face of conventional wisdom and long-standing consensus is shortsighted.

Guidelines are, and should be, continually adapted in light of new research and statistical findings. Recent estrogen-therapy findings are also not conflicting medical advice, but another example of the revision of guidelines in light of its association with adverse side effects.

Varner doubts a similar correlation for men would exist.

In fact, tests for prostate cancer also recently came under new guidelines because of false positives and the finding that many of the cancer cases that had been treated would have been so slow growing that they never would have been a problem.

If everyone had yearly MRIs, we might discover more cases of brain cancer, but is that the best use of health-care resources? No.

If we want to control health-care costs, we have to look at the statistics to make these decisions.

— Marilynn Gottlieb, Bainbridge Island

A man’s point of view

I find myself appalled at the recommendation by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for women to hold off screening for breast cancer until the age of 50 [“Breast-cancer flap gets political,” News, Nov. 19].

Although I am not a woman, the idea that a government-created group recommends lackadaisical preventive health practices truly scares me.

These sorts of practices can easily be carried over into almost any health issue concerning men and women alike. When President Obama gets his health-care reform, there will be a panel like this on every health topic, helping the government look for ways to cut costs and ration care.

Panel decisions like this will not be mere recommendations, but will become dictated terms in health-care plans. This leaves early testing procedures uncovered, forcing patients to choose between parting with profuse amounts of their own cash or gambling with their lives.

— Donald Bricker, Lake Tapps

Former Alaska governor’s memoir released this week

With the recent release of Sarah Palin’s ghostwritten work of fiction, “Going Rogue: An American Life,” I can’t help but note the lost opportunity in naming this missive, and the nonstop chatter about it and her in the media.

Wouldn’t rouge have been better than rogue? Between all those red states and the makeup Such a loss.

All the chatter has led me to coin a new word: Palindrone

Verb:

1. To drone on and on about Sarah Palin

Noun:

1. One who drones on and on about Sarah Palin

2. The sound produced when one drones on and on about Palin

Usage: The Fox palindrone kept palindroning for hours, saturating the news with naught but palindrone.

— David Darrow, Seattle

Support for global trade

Editor, The Times:

I write to commend The Seattle Times’ support for the South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and for raising awareness among readership on this critical issue affecting our economy and Washington workers.

Among the many stops on his trip, President Obama visited South Korea, a critical trading partner for the U.S. and one with whom we’ve had a free-trade agreement pending congressional approval for more than two years.

This visit presents the perfect opportunity for the president to demonstrate to the world that the U.S. remains open to global trade, and to signal to American workers that we will continue to support them and pursue every opportunity to create jobs and spur innovation in this country.

Our Northwest workers produce some of the very best goods and services in the world — Boeing airplanes, Microsoft information technology and Paccar trucks, to name a few — but 95 percent of our customers are located outside America’s borders. Therefore, trade is an essential, proven economic stimulus that brings the results of American labor to global markets that demand them, sustaining and creating jobs in the process.

America, and Washington state in particular, can ill afford to sit on the sidelines failing to act while our competitors race ahead to engage and open new trade markets. A recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce study revealed that we stand to lose 350,000 American jobs should we not enact the trade agreement before implementation of the European Union’s own agreement with South Korea.

America must not be just a participant in the global economy; we must lead it. I will continue to press for policies that ensure we will.

— Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn

Trade agreement: Been there, done that

Yes, trade is good, but not all trade deals are good, so let’s not do the Korea free-trade agreement.

Korea has systematically shut out U.S.-manufactured goods, most notably U.S. automobiles, and this agreement does not change that. The mega-banks, entertainment providers and software industry will be big winners in this deal, but once again American workers will come up short.

The Korea agreement uses the WTO model that the least regulation is the best regulation. It is the same flawed approach that led to the recent global financial crisis created by runaway banks.

Our members of Congress should be working on reforming and improving our trade model before making any more bad deals.

The template for change already exists in the Trade Act (HR 3012), which has been co-sponsored by 127 members of Congress, but not one from Washington state. It’s time to get on board the way forward and stop repeating past mistakes.

— Allan Paulson, SeaTac

We need a new direction, and a new policy

Our country has spent the past 15 years indulging the free-market, free-trade ideology of deregulation and offshoring, of cutting government oversight and coddling investors.

Look what its brought us: Our manufacturing sector is in shambles, our leading export is fraudulent financial services, and the rich keep getting richer while the rest of us struggle.

Even in our state of Washington, companies like Boeing are outsourcing and offshoring faster than you can say, “Oops, the Dreamliner’s off schedule again.”

Do you still think the answer is more of the same?

Come on.

Our country needs a new direction in trade policy. Reps. Adam Smith and Dave Reichert should reject the outdated Korea free-trade agreement, and instead put that great bipartisan spirit to work fixing the mess we’re in.

— Marina Skumanich, Seattle

Finding the balance between pure free trade and protectionism

The trade debate is easily expressed as trade versus protectionism.

If you are against trade, you must be a protectionist. This is a curiously American sentiment, since every other country in the world finds a comfortable spot between those two extremes.

No country in the world is pure free trade or pure protectionism.

It is far more useful for everyone to favor a trade policy that raises our standard of living and strengthens communities we care about. We can all oppose a trade policy that lowers our standard of living or wrecks communities we care about.

From that perspective, we all favor trade, and we need only ask which of the available trade policies will do the best job of raising our standard of living, and helping communities we care about.

Free trade has failed to meet lofty promises made to American workers, families and communities. Adding one more agreement with Korea won’t redeem a trade model that is fundamentally flawed.

— Stan Sorscher, Seattle

Raise your hand if you agree birth control can save the planet!

Editor, The Times:

Thomas Friedman may be right about climate change [“What climate-change deniers believe,” Opinion, syndicated column, Nov. 19], but he is missing his most important point.

The most critical issue to reduce CO2, conserve resources and create new energy sources is birth control.

Yes, birth control.

The increase of 2.4 billion people is not sustainable for our Earth, no matter how many other good programs we promote.

— Jean Ferry, Issaquah

Teaching with computerized lesson plans?

In response to the article “Should teachers put price tags on lesson plans?” [page one, Nov. 15], my first feeling is one of repulsion.

Teachers are paid to teach our children using the knowledge they learned in school, not by plagiarizing what other teachers do. Plagiarizing is the one thing teachers drill into our children’s minds through all the years of schooling.

The article discussed sharing ideas among others, which in my opinion is still OK, but the idea that my children will one day be taught by computerized lesson plans enrages me.

I pay taxes to provide an education for my future children and the children of their children, not to provide school educators an easy way out of their responsibilities of creating interesting ways to provide our future providers with the knowledge to live.

— Brittany Hake, North Bend

Giving students the basics

I would like to comment on The Times editorial “State should join race to reform education” [Opinion, Nov. 15].

The issue of tying teacher pay to student performance is a poor idea, and will not raise academic achievement.

Could we instead be talking more about giving students the basics? Many classrooms do not have up-to-date textbooks or enough money to buy supplies for classroom projects and activities.

This year my district lowered our individual stipends from $350 to $200 to buy classroom supplies, but our classroom sizes went up. Our class sizes are too high. One of my colleagues teaches science to more than 32 students in a room not equipped for science instruction.

How do you propose we fairly measure the worth of an art, music or physical-education teacher? Are there not some subjects where the standardized testing model does not fit?

I teach one high-school class of mostly special-education students. These students historically do not perform well on written standardized tests. Would I be making a smart move to not teach these students anymore? I am pretty sure that my students need me there in that classroom with them.

— Kelly Roger Hayes, Seattle

A note from Bishop Blanchet on charter, Catholic schools

Local K-12 education has been in the press of late. Gov. Chris Gregoire visited a school to help the state win coveted federal grants, local high schools have discussed high-school graduation requirements, Seattle Public Schools is wrestling with new boundaries, and columnists have devoted columns to investigating how poverty affects student performance.

In all this talk about education, it is surprising that no one has mentioned how Catholic schools are an important part of the educational landscape.

Washington’s Catholic school system is the second-largest so-called district in the state, educating more than 30,000 students at a fraction of the cost public schools spend per pupil. While Catholic schools spend less per student, the results are far from inferior. Studies show that Catholic schools are strong academic institutions where students succeed.

While Seattle public high schools argue over whether or not a D is sufficient to get credit, the Catholic high schools in Seattle send 99 percent of their graduates to college, and about 57 percent of them receive scholarships to colleges.

This record of academic success is remarkable.

Many argue that Catholic schools are elite institutions. Not true. Catholic schools are most successful with poor and minority students. A quick glance at the demographics of a sample Catholic high school in Seattle would show that nearly 40 percent of its students receive financial aid.

Catholic schools ensure success regardless of students’ race or income level.

It is good to see education in the news, but it’s time to include all the players, including Catholic schools. This is not a new idea. Forty states have charter movements that include Catholic and private schools. Perhaps it is time for Washington to make sure all its schools have a seat at the policy table.

— Patrick Fennessy, director of admissions and communications,

Bishop Blanchet High School, Seattle

Is it un-American to have open competition?

It is a sad commentary on the integrity of our pharmaceutical giants, to learn that the cost of prescription drugs has gone up 9 percent during the debate for health-care reform [“Drug prices rise fast before overhaul,” page one, Nov. 16].

It is particularly shameful, that through the other corner of their mouth they proclaimed the drug industry was favorable to health-care reforms and volunteered to shave drug costs by $8 billion to help the reform to succeed. The net effect will raise the nation’s drug bill by $10 billion.

What an egregious act of deceit.

The article revealed this to be a drug industry pattern. After the 2006 passage of the prescription drug program, the drug prices rose substantially. That was after we, the people, lost in the congressional debate with the pharmaceutical industry, which refused to accept the government choosing drug purchases from the lowest bidder.

Is it un-American to have open competition? Must we accept the risk of collusion by drug houses, who set the price as is done in the Middle East oil cartels.

— Jack Ballard, Port Ludlow

Research and development: Show me the money!

What do I want to have happen in this health-care debate? I want everyone at the top — insurance executives, politicians, medical administrators and medical providers — to prove to all of us why health care in this country is so expensive.

How? Show us the money!

Stop repeating the same old distraction lines, the same old chatter designed to keep the American public off point. Show us the financial breakdown for treating a patient for the flu, a broken bone, chronic illness like diabetes, arthritis or cancer.

Why does medical research cost millions of dollars? Since it has been said research and development are the primary reason for the high cost of prescription drugs, why is all the recent news focused on companies raising the price of drugs before health-care reform is finished?

I want to know who is responsible for making those decisions and why.

Here is their opportunity to show everyone in America that they are not jacking up the cost for medical treatment, that they are not working with one another to keep the price of medicine prescriptions, medical supplies and services at a very high fixed price.

And why the insurance corporations would refuse to pay for lifesaving or life-altering treatments. The truth, at least to me, is the government and all the medical service and drugmakers are lying about the cost just like the tobacco companies, Wall Street and banks lied.

— Frank Beverlin, Seattle

In bed with the flu…

As I sit in bed with the flu, I’m compelled to say we need health-insurance reform, just not the type currently proposed by the administration or either house in Congress [“Stage set for health battle in Senate,” page one, Nov. 19].

Just like assurances that adequate supplies of swine-flu vaccine would be available or that Medicare wouldn’t bankrupt our country, these proposals will cost more and deliver less.

You see, I know I’m part of the problem. Like the majority of Americans, I’ve made choices over the course of my career to accept positions that provide outstanding health-insurance coverage.

It has meant passing on some opportunities that were perhaps more exciting or fulfilling, but couldn’t provide what I felt I needed. So I’ve come to rely on my health insurance to cover nearly every dollar of health-care costs for my family.

I have no real idea of the actual costs of our health care. I don’t participate in a health-care marketplace. I don’t ask if tests or medications are required because it doesn’t matter.

Insurance will cover it.

If we want reform that will reduce costs and increase access, we need to allow a wider range of insurance options that are truly insurance, rather than health-care delivery mechanisms.

We need reform that gives those of us covered by great plans incentives to participate in our health care and understand true costs, while reducing cost-shifting within the current structure. None of the proposals currently under consideration do these things, so count me out.

— Jeff Miller, Seattle

How do you put a price on life?

Editor, The Times:

I read Lynne Varner’s column with regard to mammograms and reflected on the numbers [“Mammograms: a second opinion,” Opinion, Nov. 18].

More than 182,000 women get diagnosed with breast cancer every year, and 40,000 women die of breast cancer every year.

I am appalled at the new guidelines saying mammograms are not as effective for the under-50 age group. I find this outrageous. We have far fewer people dying of H1N1 flu, yet we are all encouraged to get vaccines against it.

It is indeed pricey, and the new advice has consequently put a price limit on how much a woman’s life is worth. I also wonder how fast the health-insurance industry will react in changing its coverage rules for the worst, to reflect the new advice.

— Anne Cochez-Lind, Woodinville

Late detection would cost even more

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against routine screening is both medically and fiscally irresponsible. It appears to be aimed at leaving room for insurance companies to not cover routine mammograms for those under 50, and to not cover them on an annual basis for those between 50 and 74.

I am 48. I do not have any history of breast cancer in my family.

Last month I had a mammogram that discovered a so-called area of concern. The biopsy determined very early-stage breast cancer. There was no palpable lump for this cancer, so without the mammogram it would not have been detected at this stage. My prognosis is excellent: This cancer is curable, because of early detection.

There is no argument against the early detection of breast cancer — it saves lives.

It also saves anxiety, money in terms of treatment, lost wages and additional child-care needs. I have a 10-year-old daughter; imagine the differences in her life if I had waited until 50 to get screened.

This is about money, and if it’s going to be about money, let’s be honest about it. Let’s weigh all the costs of late detection into the equation as well.

— Sahara Pirie, Shoreline