Nothing says educated like hairy legs and underwear?

Editor, The Times:

Ellen Goodman could have spared us some time by reducing her recent 748-word column on Sarah Palin [“The rogue elephant’s book tour,” Opinion, syndicated column, Nov. 20] down to 4 words: I don’t like her.

Goodman is like a learned professor holding forth in a witty, scholarly disquisition while his audience can’t get past the fact that he had forgotten that morning to put on his trousers. His underwear and pale hairy legs are just too distracting from his clever profundities.

In Goodman’s case, the absurdity that detracts from all is her support of Barack Obama for president.

Obama was and is much less qualified than Sarah Palin to lead the country.

So far, everything the Obama administration has done and tried to do has been extremely divisive and a complete waste of time and treasure. And yet Goodman supported Obama for president, while contending that Palin was grossly underqualified to be vice president, a job with no duties of consequence except to preside over the Senate. What’s with that?

— Peter Kogler, Seattle

Former Alaska governor fights for the heartland of America

Former Gov. Sarah Palin’s book went on sale last week and the Democratic establishment treated the governor with contempt.

For example, a recent Newsweek cover featured the governor in shorts, and the Democrat’s pundits blamed her for the unflattering photo. The attacks on the former governor are relentless in the media.

The establishment was sharply critical of her for resigning as governor. Nevertheless, she left Alaska in much better financial shape than a near-broke California and most other states.

Aligned with many of the states near bankruptcy, the Democrat federal government’s spending cannot be sustained even with confiscator tax increases.

Heartland America admires Sarah Palin because of her demonstrated Alaskan fiscal conservationism and traditional uncompromising American values.

She must keep fighting for the heartland.

— Norma Wilbur, University Place

Social Security and Medicare broke?

Nicholas Kristof’s “Health-reform foes buck historical tide” [Opinion, syndicated column, Nov. 20] tries to ignore the elephant in the room.

His claim that Social Security and Medicare “work” is true on some levels, but when one considers fiscal responsibility, they are failures.

They are both going broke.

Social Security can be described as a government-run Ponzi scheme; Medicare costs tens of times more than what the Democrats originally claimed. And so will the Democrat’s health-care plan. As Grandpa would say, “If you can’t pay for it, you have no business owning it.”

After praising Social Security and Medicare several times, Kristof managed to bring up cost once by stating there are problems in the House and Senate health-care bills, in particular they falter in cost containment.

This should be the major concern of voters.

Both parties have been kicking the can of national debt down the road for decades, but in this regard President Obama has outdone all the rest combined. And Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are helping him do it, to the eventual ruin of us all.

— Ted Hannum, Bellevue

Underlying value system is the unaddressed issue

Who in his or her right mind would not join wholeheartedly in figuring out how to provide high-quality health care at reasonable cost to every citizen [“First key vote today on Senate health bill,” page one, Nov. 21]? How can a nation that prides itself on high moral standards allow people to make profits on the backs of people who are sick?

The fundamental problem is that all of us who have investments make money because people get sick. We, or investment managers on our behalf, press constantly for increased profits and stock value.

Shame on us.

I don’t want a socialist system that takes incentive for performance and accountability out of the equation. That argument is a ruse. There are many not-for-profit organizations in the U.S. that outperform for-profit corporations in effective use of resources.

The unaddressed issue is our underlying value system.

If we demand ever-increasing profits from our health-related companies, we will never lower the cost of health care in this country. We can only hope to rearrange the deck chairs and fight to out maneuver one another for the best seat.

It is time to start asking the real questions and to look in the mirror.

— Sam Magill, Edmonds

The health-insurance-reform bill

I wish people would stop referring to the bill going through Congress as a health-care bill [“Tight vote launches health care over hurdle,” page one, Nov. 22].

It has nothing to do with either doctors or hospitals, as far as I know. Doctors and hospitals provide health care, insurance does not.

Even Sen. Patty Murray’s Web site correctly refers to it as a health-insurance-reform bill.

I don’t think that health insurance will ever become more affordable unless we start confronting the people many Americans consider mini-gods: physicians and hospitals.

— Anita Legsdin, Seattle

Physicians’ community speaks up, against new recommendations

We, as physicians and experts in breast cancer, agree with the long-standing recommendations of the American Cancer Society for screening mammography, beginning with annual exams at age 40 [“Cutting through cancer confusion,” page one, Nov. 22]. We disagree with the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recent change in guidelines.

We fear that this will discourage women from having mammograms and result in unnecessary deaths from breast cancer.

We believe their flawed analysis of old data underestimates the number of lives saved by mammography. Furthermore, modern digital technology has improved cancer detection in this age group. Even if one accepts a mortality reduction of 15 percent put forth by the USPSTF (rather than 30-40 percent as has been shown in multiple randomized controlled trials), we feel those lives are worth saving.

They estimate 1,904 women in their 40s must be screened to save one life, which they find unacceptable. For women in their 50s, 1,339 women must be screened, and they deem this acceptable.

We agree with the American Cancer Society that the lifesaving benefits of screening outweigh any potential harms.

At least 40 percent of years of life saved by mammogram screenings are of women between the ages of 40 and 49.

We feel that all lives saved are important, at any age.

— Katherine E. Dee, MD, on behalf of many members of the local physicians community

I know my life was worth it

Thank you for Lynne K. Varner’s excellent column on mammograms [“Mammograms: a second opinion,” Opinion, Nov. 18]. I loved the question, “Of the lives saved by mammograms, which ones weren’t worth the effort?”

I was 60 when my tumor was found in January of 2003. It was very deep, and would have had to grow significantly (and potentially spread) before I would have found it via self exam. If I had waited a second year for a mammogram, it could have also been much more advanced.

As it was, the size was borderline and chemo was an option to add to the surgery and radiation. My oncologist and surgeon encouraged me to go for it, since I was “young” and otherwise healthy. I agreed, and knew I could handle the treatments.

By July 23 I had completed all three phases of treatment, and on July 30 I was on the boat at Chelan headed for Holden Village, my favorite mountain retreat, to heal my spirit.

I have now been cancer-free for more than six years, and no longer have to take medication. I live a very active life with friends and family, volunteer work and some travel. I still walk three miles a day, six days a week rain or shine.

Of course, I think I was worth it. Thanks for sounding the message loud and clear.

— Linda K. Jensen, Lynnwood

Settlement will be lost in budget crisis

The article “Molested girl gets $1.5M in state settlement” [NWSaturday, Nov. 14] presented information regarding a mother unable to care for her 2-month-old child because of encounters with the law. The 2-month-old child was placed in the paternal grandmother’s home and then the grandfather was released from prison, convicted of child-molestation charges.

Then the grandparents took turns abusing the child. Not a pretty family testimonial.

So now the government is charged with making good family decisions, and the family is not responsible? Now a state agency — Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) — is responsible for people’s actions, and sued successfully, and families are not accountable.

One issue to consider: Where does the state agency get funding to pay for this frivolous lawsuit? Taxpayers?

Government typically self insures, funded by taxpayer dollars.

Was there a need for liability insurance protection when DSHS was created? Some people might now consider this service as an entitlement.

In closing, the article indicated the lawyering activity was rewarded with one-third of the $1.5-million settlement. A $1.5-million settlement will soon be lost in the $20.5 billion DSHS 2010 supplemental budget request submitted to the Office of Financial Management.

— Mike Klein, Seattle

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