Let the executive branch appoint
It was with some bemusement, if not amusement, that I read the Feb. 4 editorial “Wrong solution: Changing the state school superintendent to an appointed position is a bad idea,” advocating that the position continue as elected. The entire notion of the separation of powers in our system of government is that there is an executive, a legislative and judicial division of powers. If executive positions are determined by popular vote, then for what is the executive to be held accountable?
The example of the current activities of the attorney general is a case in point. Rob McKenna is pursuing a political agenda in opposition to the Obama health care legislation. He is way out of his brief as the senior law enforcement officer of the state of Washington. Of course, I think he is only interested in making a record for his presumed run for governor.
Boyd W. Kelly
Vancouver
Appointed positions often fall short
The Feb. 4 editorial “Wrong solution: Changing the state school superintendent to an appointed position is a bad idea,” regarded Gov. Chris Gregoire’s plan to reform public education and appoint a secretary of education rather then the elected superintendent position. Anyone familiar with the history of public education in Washington knows that committees selected by governors and legislators have failed since the 1950s.
Lawsuits filed in 1976 by Seattle School District, Judge Robert Doran, and again in 2010 by Judge John Erlick ruled that the state will define and fully fund education. Committees full of CEOs, university administrators and chaired by persons such as education advocate Fred Haley failed and could not define basic education.
If educational administrators have no specific guidelines about what is basic education, it’s impossible to fund such programs. (Sort of common sense to some but not our governor and legislators.)
“The state is in violation of its constitutionally mandated ‘paramount duty’ to define and fund basic education,” — the latest committee, unable to define, decided to redefine. They redefine and waste another 35 years.
Without trained K-12 educators on these committees they will continue to fail.
Dale Shotwell
Vancouver
Herrera is light on her homework
The quote in the Feb. 2 Columbian story “Dems label Herrera Beutler a ‘health care hypocrite,’” shows Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Wash., doesn’t understand the issues surrounding health care reform.
Herrera’s spokesman said, “Jaime wants everyone in Southwest Washington to have the same choice among health care plans that federal employees do.”
No member of Congress or any federal employee can be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Could many in Congress buy individual health insurance policies if they had to?
Instead of offering a real solution to the millions of Americans denied coverage for pre-existing conditions she throws out buzzwords like “patient-centered solutions.” Herrera comes off as a real lightweight in her first month in office.
David Miller
Brush Prairie
Don’t go changing the original
What is wrong with Vancouver’s name? This is the first Vancouver. Vancouver, B.C., is the copy of the name.
Who cares if some lost soul gets it confused? We had the name first, it’s our Vancouver, not B.C.’s.
Please don’t change the name; it’s been a good name for over a hundred years. Leave it alone.
And, just what is The Couv?
Tony Wallers
Vancouver
Balance in politics sets good example
Southwest Washingtonians really should be applauded for their independent streak.
I have really come to appreciate how we vote along different areas of the political spectrum.
Over several terms we elected Democrat Brian Baird as our U.S. congressman, we then elected Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler our congresswoman.
This also goes for different initiatives. When things such as C-Tran need our help we step in, or even support library bond measures.
People of Southwest Washington should be applauded for not being exclusively conservative or just liberal. People of Portland or the Seattle area should learn a lesson or two from us and not always vote on exclusively one side, which is usually leaning toward the left.
Keith Johnson
Ridgefield
Casino is example of free market
Jeers to The Columbian on its position on the city of La Center’s decision not to join the coalition to block the Cowlitz Tribe casino.
The Columbian assumes all the jobs at the casino will be low-wage. Does that mean the Clark County coalition will block other businesses that pay low wages such as fast-food establishments, most restaurants and retail stores?
The Columbian doesn’t seem to have a problem with the unhealthy habit of gambling as long as it is at the La Center cardrooms.
The Feb. 5 editorial “Cheers & Jeers: La Center should join casino fight” further states that the Cowlitz casino will out-compete the cardrooms that form the city’s tax base. I guess that means that if Clark County has one brand of grocery store, another brand of grocery store should not be allowed to open since it might out-compete the other stores.
Concerns for La Center losing its tax base seem ridiculous. The Cowlitz Tribe tried to negotiate with La Center to subsidize the city’s losses from the existing casinos for a period of years and were turned down.
Maybe The Columbian should change its name to The Hypocrite.
Barbara Irvine
Vancouver
Effects of casino need further study
My daughter lives in Solvang, Calif., where a casino was built a few years ago. When I told her there are plans to build a casino near Vancouver, she said from her experience we sure wouldn’t like what it brings.
After the flush of construction jobs come the problems: drugs, prostitution, and people who can least afford it pouring their money out to profiteers who don’t live with the effects. Her neighbors who live near the Solvang casino hate it. They continually find condoms, needles, and similar trash all around their homes and streets.
Are the low-paying jobs it provides worth the trade-offs?
Why don’t we study the effects of casinos in other locations before one is built here?
Dale Davis
Vancouver
