Bush’s request for Americans to conserve gas
Re: “President Bush asks Americans to conserve gasoline by driving less,” Sept. 27 news story.
Thank you for your coverage of President Bush’s appeal to Americans to conserve energy. It reminded me of Jimmy Carter’s appeals to save energy. What’s next from the White House: “Wear a sweater”?
Tragically, Bush gives us 1970s anecdotes for a long-term problem. In the 1970s, we had no Internet, no laptop computers and no cellphones. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, some 30 percent of American workers could telecommute at least partially. Imagine one in three cars disappearing from the rush-hour commute. Fewer cars on the road equals less competition for gas equals lower energy costs.
What can the average American do about high energy costs? Just stay home!
Frank Ohrtman, Denver
Fiscal referendums on November ballot
The opportunity for taxpayers, property owners and homeowners to retain some semblance of control over their government at the state level this November is of utmost importance. We are being asked to give up our life preserver of economic and tax control of government in the form of TABOR overrides. Many taxpayers in other states are or would be very jealous of the TABOR controls of wild state spending habits we have in Colorado. This is why other states currently have far worse economic conditions than Colorado. Are we supposed to trust our government officials concerning Referendums C and D? We don’t think so.
You will continue to hear about the dire consequences if these measures do not pass. The roads will fall apart, schools will close and children will suffer. Do not believe it. Continuing to throw money at education does not equate to quality in education. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that increasing education spending has no direct bearing on improving student performance.
So voters need to ask themselves if they really want to increase the size of government. Do they want to approve a $3.7 billion tax increase instead of refunding it to taxpayers? Colorado citizens should not abandon TABOR’s sensible controls that protect their pocketbooks. Vote “no” on Referendums C and D. Send a message to lawmakers and force them to live within their means, just as all of us have to do.
Jeff and Paula Andreski, Loveland
…
Re: “Pro-C and D tactics,” Sept. 20 Open Forum.
Reintroduction of wolves to Colorado
Letter-writer Jon Reynolds unwittingly does a fabulous job of framing Referendums C and D’s core concept when he writes about the “exploitation of several mentally and physically handicapped children at a Capitol rally.” The uneducated, poor and disabled are “invisible” to most people, and many would prefer they stay out of sight. Big surprise: C and D opponents want to have their cake and eat it, too. Send those excess collections back and we’ll just pretend no one’s really worse off. It sure would be peachy if real life were that neat and tidy.
C and D aren’t an esoteric civics exercise and they’re not gene splicing. Vote how you will. If C and D fail, at least you’ll have seen the faces of those impacted. Then look in the mirror and do the honorable thing: Take your share of responsibility for many other children and adults with disabilities waiting for basic services who will have to go without. That’s some major league exploitation.
Bruce Stahlman, Littleton
…
Despite the alarmist rhetoric of some of our politicians, there is no fiscal crisis in Colorado that would necessitate changes to the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, as proposed in Referendum C. Even during the recession, which has been over for some time, overall spending by our state government continued to grow above the rate of inflation. Wouldn’t those of us on a fixed retirement income like our budgets to grow beyond the inflation rate? With the jump in gasoline prices and the upcoming hike in natural gas rates, wouldn’t it be nice to get some of our tax money back from the state?
Don’t be fooled by politicians who have cried wolf too often. Hold on to your wallets and vote “no” on Referendum C.
Bill Hildebrand, Buena Vista
Reintroduction of wolves to Colorado
Re: “Activists offer cash if RMNP’s wolf plan spills blood,” Sept. 27 news story.
Apparently the Washington, D.C.-based Defenders of Wildlife and, supposedly, two-thirds of Coloradans would like to reintroduce wolves to Colorado. Unfortunately, those in Washington just won’t have any opportunity to come into contact with wolves, and the majority of those two-thirds of Coloradans favoring this plan live in the Interstate 25 metro corridor.
I propose that the first places to reintroduce wolves should be Rock Creek Park in Washington, D.C., and Denver’s City Park. I can personally attest to the desirability of Rock Creek Park because I grew up in D.C. and frequented the park. These locations were actual natural habitat for wolves prior to the early settlers having unfairly driven them out.
We could then test the Defenders of Wildlife’s claims that wolves never attack humans, their children or grandchildren, much less the family cat or dog.
Many of us who live in the Front Range mountains know that wolves will migrate here naturally. Witness the one from a Wyoming pack that was killed in Idaho Springs last year. We live with mountain lions and bears, and sooner or later we will live with wolves that got here naturally.
D.A. Bell, Bailey
Bush and racism
Re: “Was race a factor in the response to Katrina?” Sept. 27 Open Forum.
Letter-writer Ann M. Little wrote: ” Bush leads a party that has waged war on affirmative action and immigrants, legal and illegal. Furthermore, his tax cuts have benefited only the super-rich, and the cost of his bloody Iraq misadventure is borne disproportionately by soldiers of color.”
Affirmative action is favoritism toward some races and against others; by definition, that’s racism. Whatever happened to Dr. Martin Luther King’s advice to judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin?
Many members of the GOP claim that Bush is doing little or nothing about illegal immigrants, but this professor claims he’s waged war on them. Which is it?
The Bush tax-rate cuts, which rightfully went to those who pay income taxes, have resulted in the top 5 percent of income earners paying an even higher percentage of total income taxes than they did before the rate cuts. This policy brought us out of a recession by providing incentives for those with money to invest and create the businesses that employ poor people. Unemployment is down, and revenues to the federal treasury will set a record this year.
Anti-war activists made similar racial claims about Vietnam, and they’re making them now that the soldiers of color bear a disproportionate percentage of the casualties. It wasn’t true then, and it’s not true now.
Jeff Miller, Thornton
Hybrid vehicles
Re: “Hybrids and the market- place,” Sept. 27 editorial.
The Post wrote, in its editorial: “Hybrids get from 30 to 60 miles per gallon, but they’re more sluggish than ordinary gas engines.” I’ve been driving a four-cylinder 2002 Toyota Prius since December 2001, and it is in no way sluggish. In fact, my friend who drives a Mazda four-cylinder sedan has said that my car has more oomph than hers. The Prius’ electric motor kicks in to provide strong torque when the driver presses on the accelerator, giving the engine quite a bit more power than regular four-cylinder vehicles. Yet, driving 150 miles to Breckenridge and back recently, I used only 3 gallons of gas. On the way up the hill, I passed many a sluggish four-cylinder sedan and a few six-cylinder vehicles as well.
Carol Fitzgerald, Denver
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
