Letters to the editor

State budget

Beware backlash over frivolous spending

Editor, The Times:

I cannot believe how fiscally irresponsible our state Senate Democrats and governor are being with this new budget. Piling more burden on taxpayers at this point is outrageous and inexcusable! As I read through all the frivolous and unnecessary expenditures that the Democrats want us to pick up the tab for, I can't help but feel outrage.

Do you Democrats really want to know why Dino Rossi has fought so hard to lead us? Someone needs to stand up to the unions and special interests and question why we're spending so much. It obviously isn't going to happen under Gov. Christine Gregoire. You people need to wake up and remember, we are the people who put you where you are, and you are spending our money. There will be a backlash of very unhappy people if someone doesn't start taking this seriously.

The state employees can do without the new money and extra benefits. The Girl Scouts can raise their own money. And I don't think we need to spend our tax money so people can learn more about grizzly bears!

Good citizens, please join me in hoping and praying for that new election — I'd wager, this one won't be so close.

— Scott Santos, Snoqualmie

Taxes and the budget

What are lawmakers thinking in targeting canned meat?

I can understand raising the taxes on cigarettes (it may even make me quit finally) and maybe a tax on extended warranties, but what the Sam Hill are they thinking with a meat-products tax ("Canned meat feels heat as Senate looks for tax revenue," Times, Local News, March 30)? What is a meat product?

And if we are going to tax it, doesn't a little thinking need to be involved here?

Our elected officials (yes, I emphasize the elected as we can unelect them in the next vote) are already cutting benefits to low-income families and disabled people. A meat-products tax just sends the message that we can take away and then take some more. Give me a break!

Hey, Olympia! If you want to find a way to fix the budget crisis, how about taking a pay cut or better still, go a couple of years like some of us working middle class and use those savings to pay for the budget. Only seems fair.

— Barbara Hoerr, Everett

Meting out fairness

We the people support having our Legislature pass laws to tax us to pay for services. Taxing cigarettes to pay for lung cancer or medical injuries caused by the product appear fair. Taxing alcohol to pay for domestic violence and DUI is acceptable. Taxing fuel to pay for roads makes sense.

Why is there a special tax on canned meat? Do the vegetarians get a free ride? Would we have a special tax on newspapers to tax the literate and let the nonreaders live unburdened?

Property taxes are passed on to the renters; sales taxes are paid by spenders. Their revenue is used to benefit those who pay them. Let us not unfairly burden a group of vendors or citizens to pay for goods and services of the whole community.

— Paul England, Redmond

Tax studded tires

On Easter, one piece of conversation focused on the proposed gas-tax increase. My daughter is a civil engineer for the Department of Transportation.

She made the point that one car with studded tires does as much damage as a couple hundred nonstudded vehicles. How many days of work would a person have missed over the past two or three years if they were without these road grinders on their wheels? It is ridiculous to run them the entire season on the chance we have a day or two of light snow.

Here is an idea the Governor's Office should look seriously at: Tax the studded tires till it hurts! If a person needs them so bad, at least make them help pay for the damage to our road surfaces! Put a $50-$100 excise tax on each tire sold. And make the owners show proof of purchase (with the tax included) so they don't run out of state (or country) to avoid the surcharge. A nice fat ticket should be issued for those lacking proper proof of purchase.

Let the people who do the most damage pay for it, not everyone.

— Rick Eirich, Kirkland

Just say "No More!"

Bravo to The Times for its editorial of March 30 blasting Senate Democrats for piling on $200 million more in taxes and spending ("Senate Democrats shouldn't pile on").

The time has arrived, perhaps it has already passed, for this state's overburdened taxpayers to tell lawmakers: "No More!" No more tax hikes, including hikes in the state gasoline tax. No more fee hikes, which are simply hidden taxes. No more spending.

Perhaps the phrase "No More!" will become something of a political battle cry for fiscal conservatives as they race to take back the Legislature in 2006, by which time, hopefully, the real winner of the 2004 gubernatorial race will be in office.

— Dave Workman, North Bend

Mental-health crunch

You may have read the facts and figures on the mental-health-care crisis Washington state is facing. We're due to lose $82 million in federal Medicaid revenues over the next two years, and Medicaid funds almost 90 percent of state community mental-health services.

As an emergency physician, I see the people behind those numbers. I know from firsthand experience that, at a time when people with mental illness are already facing shortages in services and facilities, the Medicaid cuts could be devastating.

Keep in mind that most of the emergency departments in Washington are "at" or "over" capacity, and the demand for care continues to grow. When you combine that with declining access to mental-health services, the result is a crunch that hurts everyone. The situation could get much, much worse unless our state leaders act.

To be sure, there are many causes of overcrowding, including the growing number of Americans without health insurance, cutbacks in reimbursement from Medicaid, Medicare and other payers, denials of coverage from health-care plans, etc.

Gov. Christine Gregoire and the Legislature face some tough choices as they struggle with the state budget crisis and the looming Medicaid cuts. I hope they make the smart choice too, finding ways to expand support for mental-health services, which will in turn help improve everyone's access to lifesaving medical care in emergency departments.

— Dr. Dean Gushee, president, Washington Chapter American College of Emergency Physicians, Shelton

No surprise

Once again, the Democrats (protectors of the poor and disadvantaged) have proposed new taxes that will hit the poor hardest. Why should you be surprised?

They do it all the time and The Times keeps on endorsing them for election and then is surprised when they do what they always do: raise taxes! When was the last time the Democrats cut spending and taxes?

— Jim Ashcraft, Cle Elum

Subsidies for the boonies

Why is it always people living out in the hinterlands in places like North Bend or Snohomish or Gig Harbor who whine the loudest about high taxes in their letters to the editor?

If their taxes are indeed high these people should take a look at themselves. They're part of the problem. In no small measure people living in the low-density boonies are a greater burden on state and local governments to provide schools, roads and highways, sewer, water, police and fire protection, etc.

It costs way more than they are paying to sustain that far-flung low density. The reality is that we who live in efficient, sustainable, denser urban communities subsidize outer-suburban and ex-urban development with our tax contributions.

If people living on the fringes want that lifestyle, they should quit crying. They're getting off easy in not having to pay for the true cost of that choice themselves. It is city-dwellers who should be complaining!

— Mike Moedritzer, Seattle

Tax empty-calorie items

An important ingredient was left out of "Canned meat feels heat as Senate looks for tax revenue": the fact that legislators across the country and especially in Olympia prefer taxes that affect a narrow group of consumers. Hence, a tax on Spam (found mostly in lower-income homes).

If they had one ounce of courage, lawmakers would tax sodas, candies, doughnuts, ice cream, white bread, sugared juices, etc. Very little, if any, nutrition is found in these products and they are known to lead to obesity and diabetes.

Even at just a penny per item, I would venture that the budget could be balanced within a year of enactment. As a bonus, the added tax might lead to less consumption of these empty-calorie products, resulting in weight loss and lower medical costs to the state.

— Petra Hellthaler, Bremerton

Tempting savings

As the executive director for a local community health center, I wish to commend the state Senate for following Gov. Christine Gregoire's lead with solid health-care funding that will preserve the Basic Health Plan, adult dental care, expand access to Medicaid for children, and maintain state support for health centers. It appears that our state policymakers realize that cutting health care is not the way to balance the budget.

While short-term savings are tempting, cuts to health care always lead to higher costs later and negative health outcomes for a growing number of Washington residents.

Let's hope that the House shares this wisdom.

— Ralph Forquera, executive director, Seattle Indian Health Board, Seattle

Protect the vulnerable

As an oncology social worker in Seattle, I am very concerned about the Senate's proposed budget and human-services cuts.

For many of the people in the state, budget decisions are not just about whether or not they'll have what it takes to get by, it's about their ability to survive.

First the governor, and now the Senate, have proposed cuts to human services in their budget proposals. Both budgets also raise modest taxes to cover the budget shortfall.

The revenue both these budgets raise is enough to preserve programs that keep the disabled and elderly out of nursing homes and allow them care at home with dignity. It is enough to ensure people have a safety net when they have a temporary disability and don't have to end up homeless. It is enough to ensure that sick and injured people can get Medicaid and once on, can afford their prescription drugs.

With growing uncertainty for people with lower incomes, particularly the elderly and disabled, these cuts are not only unnecessary — they will be disastrous. It is vital that the House of Representatives issue a more responsible budget and protect people in Washington.

— Susan Leavitt, Seattle

Keep promises

Professional compensation for educators must be a state budget priority. It is often said you get what you pay for. Well-qualified, experienced educators are the most important element in the quality of education our children receive.

The governor's as well as the Senate's proposed budget is a step in the correct direction with plans to fully fund Initiatives 732 and 728. However, the budget falls short on many compensation issues. Health-care insurance increases are not adequate to keep up with increased costs. Failure to fund the level of increase in health care would negate the 1.2 percent cost of living adjustment. This would mean an actual decrease in take-home pay for many teachers. Both budgets do not include makeup money for the salary lost during the two years the Legislature suspended Initiative 732.

Will the best and brightest want to go into our classrooms and teach our children when the state has in the past failed so miserably to support teachers? It is time for our elected leaders to keep their promise to the children in the classrooms and to those who teach them. It is time for our elected leaders to live up to their constitutional duty and truly make education the paramount duty of the state.

— Jim Lindberg, Tacoma

No creativity

The Washington Legislature is showing its usual colors.

Tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend. Tax cigarettes, alcohol and gas. No creativity. No thoughtful solutions. Year after year after year, it's the same. The easy out. How disgusting!

— Randy McSmith, Bothell