Legislators made right decision
At a time when our legislators in Olympia are facing historic budget deficits and have had to cut so many vital programs, it is absolutely crucial that we recognize that, during the one-day special session on Dec. 18, legislators preserved a critical public health program that actually saves the state money and saves lives.
Their decision means that, for the moment, thousands of low-income women in Washington will still be able to get birth control, cancer screening and other basic health care, and the state still gets to avoid paying millions of dollars in costs associated with unintended pregnancy. For every $1 the state spends on family planning, it saves $4.39.
We need this money and we need this program, and I’d like to thank the elected officials who supported its preservation.
I strongly urge them to do the same in the 2011-2013 biennial budget, and I am asking all of my fellow readers to join with me in supporting them.
With the national and local economies still not doing well, none of us can afford cuts to family planning. Now more than ever, we need to take care of one another.
Michael Sutcliffe
Vancouver
Taxpayers bullied into irrelevancy
Bullies exercise power over their victims. When a state legislator relegated those with opposing views on the benefits or costs of the Columbia River Crossing project to “goofball” status, he did so with the approbation of some of the more wealthy and influential among us. (Dec. 17 Columbian online story “Legislators sing different tune on budget, I-5 bridge.”) He drove home the prior humiliation of taxpayers who were never consulted on the project, even though we will pay for it. We are irrelevant.
The governor has already declared a consensus among those who matter. She will talk to the feds and inform them that she has all the local support she needs to ask them to appropriate more of our money for the federal match. (Dec. 16 Columbian online “Gregoire to push for Columbia River Crossing dollars.”)
She will ask the state Legislature to commit the full faith and credit of the state of Washington to further multi-billion dollar bonded indebtedness.
Will she ask the voters before she spends our money? No, we are irrelevant.
Robert Dean
Vancouver
Vote will reveal public’s rejection
Next year, C-Tran is going to put on the ballot a chance for the taxpayers in Clark County to finally have a say in funding the Columbia River Crossing, with a vote on funding operation and maintenance of light- rail expansion into Clark County.
As designed, the CRC will cost our region as much as $10 billion, as reported by a Portland economist, mostly to be paid for by families who live in Washington and work in Portland.
In a time when 13.1 percent of our fellow citizens cannot find work, local businesses and politicians give rousing applause to increased financial burdens on our region, an insult that cannot be ignored.
Business groups like the Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, Identity Clark County and the Columbia River Economic Development Council and local politicians on both sides of the river are going to be sorely surprised in November when I believe over 70 percent of the registered voters cast a “no” vote for funding light rail.
And I believe that will finally end the Columbia River Crossing project as designed.
Then voters need to revisit the politicians who pushed for this economy-destroying project and put into office new blood to better reflect the values of the taxpayers of Southwest Washington.
Allen Anderson
Camas
Suspicions confirmed
Battle Ground City Manager John Williams was credited in the Dec. 15 Reflector for engineering an amazing cost-of-living adjustment for the Battle Ground Police Association, which “doesn’t really cost the city anything.” His solution is to give them 60 more hours of vacation “in lieu of any cost-of-living increase.”
This way it would not cost the city “anything” since their salaries were already paid.
If we carry this clear thinking a bit further, the city of Battle Ground can have full employment and have everyone on vacation all year — and it will not cost anything since their salaries are already being paid.
Did anyone consider that salaries are normally paid for doing work?
With thinking like that, Williams better work hard to keep his public servant job because he wouldn’t last five minutes out here in the private sector.
Art Krenzel
Battle Ground
‘Change’ is getting worse
In George Will’s Dec.19 opinion column, “Obama’s Afghan strategy imperils re-election,” about Afghanistan’s government, U.S. Ambassador Carl W. Eikenberry wonders “how to fight corruption and connect the people to their government, when the key government officials are themselves corrupt.” Does this remind anyone of what our problem is here in the U.S.? Our government does not listen to the people, be it health care or immigration.
The greed of our officials and people of power keep the drugs and illegals coming in from Mexico, China and Arab countries, and sends our manufacturing to countries that use child labor.
We tried to change it in the last election, but it gets worse. Can you believe getting fined for “not” buying health insurance when you just have enough for food or rent?
Merry Christmas.
Carl L. Hissman
Vancouver
Bad timing by Democrats in 2008
It now appears that the Democrats committed a strategic error in 2008; they won the election. This was a wonderful tactical victory, showing superb organizational skills and political savvy.
But, during the final months of the campaign, it was apparent that mighty Zeus himself could not in four years dig this country out of the economic hole that it was getting into, thus dooming the winner of the election to a one-term presidency.
A better strategy would have been to back off and let the Republicans win the election and then fail in their efforts to pull us out of this depression.
After all, they caused it. Strategically, a win four or eight years later would let the Democrats take control, serve two or more terms and maybe do some good.
Or, is it possible that the Republicans conceived this strategy themselves and campaigned to lose?
How else can you explain Sarah Palin?
Garry Layton
Camas
