We can’t afford delusional vision
Unemployment close to 12 percent, business is down, no true signs of recovery in sight, and the City of Vancouver and The Columbian present a new bridge, a freeway cap and a new high-rise development as Vancouver’s future image of who they may be one day. That is a delusional view.
America is drowning in debt, every day a story is carried about foreclosures, businesses large and small are cutting hours, wages and benefits, and many are closing. Washington and Oregon are in desperate times. Being able to cross our already paid-for bridges for free is only right; being forced to pay because of a private development is wrong.
While I do not get a vote on the Vancouver city government, it seems the outcome reaches beyond its city limits. We can’t afford any additional expense, let alone that of a waterfront development. We are years from any kind of a recovery. We as a people cannot add to our region’s debt with the cost a new bridge.
A better use for the waterfront property would be a grain terminal and all the family wage jobs and taxes it would bring. That would look better than a high rise on a brochure of our region.
Allen Anderson
Camas
Public trust essential to funding
Marcy Boyer’s Nov. 1 local view, “Infrastructure needs must not be ignored,” was right on the mark. However, in order to obtain adequate funding, local governments and utilities must strengthen public trust.
Many are doing good work toward this end, but more is needed. Publicizing the results of annual performance measures and consistent messaging about their organization’s mission are just some ways these agencies can exhibit accountability and transparency to the public.
Over time, these efforts and others establish the public trust that is essential to sustain long-term funding for these necessary improvements.
Bill Owen
Vancouver
Vote is controversial to either side
Kudos to Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., for his “no” vote on the government’s takeover of our health care system. But I have to ask if the Democrats needed one more vote to pass this horrible bill, would he have voted “yes”?
Poor Brian, he’s damned if he does and he’s damned if he doesn’t.
Helen Hebblethwaite
La Center
Premium estimates will be wrong
Rep. Brian Baird’s Web site has been starting with why he voted “no” on health care reform. His primary reason is that the Congressional Budget Office premium estimates for those already with health insurance are not done. Speaking as a former statistician, I can say it doesn’t matter whether those numbers are out or not, they will be wrong and, at best, educated guesses. There are simply too many variables and too many individual decisions involved to expect an estimate any more accurate than what CBO did for Medicare Part D.
Those estimates proved to be twice as high as what the program actually cost after starting up.
What is certain is the existing system costs 50 percent more than national health care systems in other developed nations, and yet in health outcomes the USA ranks below those other nations. It is not until you get to health outcomes for those who live to 65 and older that the USA rank improves because of nearly universal coverage in a single-payer system, Medicare. A lot of us don’t live that long, though.
Walter L. Johnson
Vancouver
Don’t hide behind anonymity
I am continually disgusted at the unabashed name-calling that I see when I read the comment section within the letters to the editor section of The Columbian online. I like to read other members of my community opinions in the letters’ contents. I like to see diverse opinion, respectfully debated.
What I continually see and what sickens me the most is the absolute disrespect that is written mostly by those who use a “screen” name.
Anonymity gives people courage to write or say things that most would never say face to face to someone they disagree with.
If you disagree with someone, that is your right, it is your right to express your opinion, but what we’ve lost as a society is being polite and having verbose discussions with respect and without name-calling.
It used to be that freedom of speech was protected in America — it appears that to some frequent posters in the comment section online, it is only protected if it agrees with them, and they don’t dare use their real names.
If you have something to say, you should have the intestinal fortitude to take the heat of your words and back up your right to say it — but do it with some form of manners.
Jeanette Muck
Vancouver
Vancouver, where?
Why the fuss about the city name Vancouver? Are so many people confusing Vancouver, Washington, with Vancouver, British Columbia? I don’t think so.
Let’s wait until after the XXI Winter Olympic Games in February 2010, and count how many tourists showed up here to see the games.
W. Martin Cain
Vancouver
We are the original
Vancouver, Washington, was incorporated in 1857. Twenty-nine years later in 1886, the Canadian settlement of Granville was incorporated as Vancouver, B.C.
Vancouver, Wash., came first. The Canadians copied us. Let them change their city’s name to stop the confusion.
Gary L. Lentz Sr.
Vancouver
GOP continues to stall progress
Health care-related bankruptcies have risen since 2001 to almost 65 percent. More than $1 trillion (which appeared off the budget, and hence not in the Bush deficits) spent on war in Iraq and Afghanistan through 2008.
This must be what Fox News and the Republican Party refer to as “the price of freedom.”
As the Republican leadership protests it has better ideas for reforming health care, just a reminder that through the recent years of almost complete GOP domination of Congress and the Executive Branch, not one bill on health reform even reached the agenda of a committee in the House or Senate. No bill was ever allowed to be debated or voted on.
As the Grand Old Party sacrilegiously proclaims itself to be “for health reform, only the right kind” and as the “true conservative conscience” of this country, I would laugh were I not so appalled.
Raymond May
Vancouver
