Gauging resistance

Turn over assessment to the mileage meter

Editor, The Times:

I'm voting for the gas-tax rollback.

"Slight gain in fuel efficiency reported" [Times, News, July 29] reports "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said in its annual findings that the estimated average fuel economy for 2005 model-year vehicles was 21 miles per gallon, a fleetwide average that increased 0.2 mpg from the previous year. It was 5 percent below the peak of 22.1 mpg in 1987, the EPA said."

That's 18 years of progress?

If we desire any political will to mandate higher-mileage vehicles, we have to get them away from funding transportation by our frequent trips to the pump. The current funding system exists at the expense of higher-mileage vehicles and increases our dependence on foreign oil.

An odometer tax would be better, on the miles you drive for the time you own the car based on readings during emission tests between title changes.

If I'm wrong about why we don't have better fuel efficiencies and we start to get astounding mpg in the short term, we will be short funding and the politicians will be raising the fuel taxes again.

Let's put in place something where those who use the roads pay for them.

— Carl Wilson, Seattle

Accelerating anxiety

Stop and think about what you stand to lose

Editor, The Times:

And still the letters keep coming from the I-912 crowd ["Tank battle," Northwest Voices, Aug. 9]. With either no suggestions for real improvements to our declining infrastructure, or with disingenuous suggestions (move to the city, move to the 'burbs), the real gist of their letters is they simply don't want to pay the necessary costs of those improvements.

For those of us who understand that both our physical safety and our economic vitality depend on an updated and upgraded infrastructure, we need to pay for it. And the gas-tax increase is a user tax for those of you arguing that somehow a toll bridge is a user fee, but the gas tax isn't.

The easiest way for you to avoid this user tax is to not drive. Use the mass-transit system in your area, ride a bike or "hoof it," as I understand it is healthier for you anyway.

But for those of us who understand we need to address our infrastructure so that business will continue developing, the gas-tax increase is an important tool in realizing that goal.

— Bryan Nelson, Tumwater

Neighbors help push

Like every other supporter of the huge gas-tax increase, "Trumping the greater good" [Joni Balter editorial column, Aug. 4] makes no mention of the existing gas tax.

Since there is already an existing gas tax, increasing the population by 50 percent will increase the gas-tax take by 50 percent.

So what's going on with the existing tax revenue? Since tax receipts rise in proportion to an increase in population and an increase in driving, why shouldn't that be just the increase necessary? I find Balter's argument to be seriously unconvincing by failing to address these points and by implying that there are no current gas-tax collections.

Until these questions are satisfactorily answered, I will certainly be voting "No" for more gas taxes.

— Walter Bright, Kirkland

Jack to the future

Attention, residents of Puget Sound: Stop complaining about congestion, cracked pavement and ferry service because nothing is going to be done about it, if Initiative 912 passes. Get used to delays, increasing traffic and poorer service.

Yes, projects cost millions. But, can we really expect today's "fixes" to have yesterday's prices? Do you expect your mechanic to charge the 1980 price for fixing a radiator in 2005? Are you shocked that it costs $3 more to go to a movie than it did 10 years ago?

Pay for the cost of driving, so we don't have to continue spending time on faulty structures, in failing ferry terminals, or behind lines of cars.

— Christy Wong, Seattle

Parts missing

Some historical perspective might be in order.

In 1969, the average price of gas in the Puget Sound region was 35 cents a gallon, including 4 cents of federal tax and 9 cents state tax. Expressed as a percentage, that's a 37 percent tax rate, far above the rate we are now paying.

Also in 1969, the minimum wage in Washington state was $1.60 an hour.

— Mark Cotter, Bothell

In for the long haul

My grandfather was a member of the firefighters on the Seattle waterfront in the 1800s, my father was born here in 1884, I was born here in 1926, my children were born here beginning in the '40s and their children are now living here.

We have gladly paid taxes all those years, and what did we get for it? We got this unbelievably beautiful place with schools, libraries, roads, parks, stores, and I could go on to list the results of all those taxes we paid gladly.

What a privilege it is to be able to work and breathe in this place and, I might add, to pay taxes with a grateful heart.

— June Arnett, Lake Forest Park

Passing left and right

Why Washingtonians are in support of repealing the gas tax is simple. Our state government didn't cut costs in this year's budget, nor has it in the recent past. It adds to the costs, and expects taxpayers to increase the revenues.

The taxpayers have had enough. When the state government cuts costs and reduces the state budget, the voters will support its efforts.

At some point, you have to say no to excessive spending, as an employer, as a parent and as a government.

— Becky Nixon, Duvall

Honk if you're at home

With all the positioning going on regarding more road taxes or less, or more mass-transit dollars or less, the solution to traffic congestion is so obvious that most everyone overlooks it.

With today's technologies, working from home using computers, faxes, Web video-conferencing and other technologies makes the most sense. It results in less traffic, road repairs and pollution, it dramatically reduces corporate overhead, it reduces family stress and it lowers personal commute costs.

It takes some personal commitment to work independently, but if I am correct, that is what we are teaching these days in school, right?

Instead of raising taxes on businesses and families, how about offering incentives to companies that allow employees to telecommute and work from home. Employees would also get a tax benefit by being able to deduct a portion of their home costs for the use of a portion of their homes for work-only purposes.

Why is it the most obvious solution is the most-often overlooked?

— Art Francis, Issaquah

If you can read this you're too late

John Carlson's "The reason folks flocked to the gas-tax-repeal initiative" [guest commentary, Aug. 4] basically says, Sure, congestion is bad, and I'm against it too — but I'm not going to pay anything to get rid of it.

Whether one is for I-912 or against it, right now it looks like a total slam-dunk. It will pass, by 55 percent to 45 percent, at least.

So, no more additional gas taxes. Let's kill all those silly transportation projects, and send a message to our state legislators that spending money on transportation here is political suicide.

My vision of our future: Puget Sound-area motorists sitting in their idling 10-mpg Hummers, inching forward in lines of vehicles stretching in stop-start traffic 100 miles from Tumwater to Marysville, enjoying not being in such a hurry, putting their time to good use listening to right-wing talk radio or to antisocial rap, appreciating $4/gallon gasoline and $80/barrel Mideast oil, savoring the fresh outdoor scent of vehicle exhaust, and remembering Seattle's now-invisible scenery.

Let's revive the ancient practice of navel contemplation, only doing it now in stopped cars. And let's hear it for gridlock!

Voters, remember the words of Yogi Berra: "When you come to a fork in the road, take it!"

— Chuck Hastings, Federal Way

Flagging energy

Recharging our battery

The Times reports that "Oil prices zoomed higher Wednesday, touching a new high of $65 a barrel" ["Price of oil hits $65 a barrel; analysts say supply fears overblown," Business & Technology, Aug. 10], and I read elsewhere that gasoline at the pump is 40 percent higher than a year ago.

When are the media going to connect this fact with the invasion of Iraq? Before we invaded Iraq, oil was selling for less than $30 a barrel. In fact, even a rumor that it might go to $30 barrel sent shudders through the nation.

Now it is $65 a barrel and threatening to go higher — a threat that endangers not only our economy, but the world's.

This "legacy" is what our soldiers are being asked to risk their lives for, ever-higher prices for the liquid that powers the world, and that fact should be trumpeted by the press until the full meaning of what George Bush's war has cost us sinks into our news-trivia-besotted brains.

— Kevin O'Morrison, Edmonds

Negative clamp

Regarding "Keep ANWR out of budget, 24 in GOP say" [News, Aug. 11], this budget bill is ludicrous. The bill necessarily relies on the fact that we will continue to depend on fossil fuels for energy and ties it to the revenues from that oil.

The fact that the oil is coming from an extremely fragile ecosystem makes this bill doubly despicable.

We cannot expect to gain any significant revenues or energy from this bill. It is essential that our elected officials vote this down. Kudos to Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn, for speaking out against this.

— Madeleine Hottman, Seattle

Positive connection

It took us 50 years to get an energy bill, and that really only demonstrated how ignorant Congress is of our situation ["Congress acts on roads, energy, guns," News, July 30].

Playing Scrooge McDuck with known assets is no longer an option; we must tap what is available so that it will be available should the need become great.

In energy, doing nothing or not doing enough ceased to be an option long ago. I suggest those who do not understand the urgency of what I am saying do their homework. We also cannot afford to have an uninformed electorate.

— Hugh Coleman, Kelso

Race to the bottom

Godiva to show

If Suzanne Snow makes $50,000 per year working every other week as a stripper at Rick's, as she testified before the Seattle City Council ["Strippers fear losing jobs if rules change," Local News, Aug. 11], perhaps the city should think about solving its budget problems by hiring only stripper-qualified employees, and then having its employees work as strippers every other week and on more-traditional duties the rest of the time.

Perhaps we would then get some people employed by the city of Seattle with the sense to focus their political efforts on real concerns and truly more important things, not phony issues dredged up out of a Victorian tea parlor.

Seattle's roadways are falling down, monorails are failing to go up, social-service budgets are in continual chronic crisis, and we're focused on lap dancers?

There's a problem here, but it's not with the strippers...

— Chris Van Dyk, Bainbridge Island