Low-interest loans for farmers who lost cattle
Re: “Ranchers deserve federal aid,” Feb. 14 editorial.
The Denver Post’s editorial did not accurately reflect the position or action of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in response to the recent blizzards.
Colorado farmers and ranchers suffered significant livestock losses in recent blizzards. The governor requested that the USDA use a Secretarial Disaster Declaration for low-cost emergency loans. But when Colorado’s snow-covered damages couldn’t be established at 30 percent loss required under disaster laws, the USDA looked deeper and gave Colorado’s farmers and ranchers the exact same benefit as the Secretarial Disaster through another means.
The USDA has a variety of tools in its tool box, but each tool has its own set of limitations imposed by regulation or statute. U.S. regulations require a 30 percent loss in the production of a major crop in a county in order to issue a USDA Secretarial Disaster declaration. Obviously, a natural disaster that hits outside of the growing season is not likely to heavily impact crop production. However, we all realized that producers had suffered losses. To respond positively, the USDA’s Colorado Farm Service Agency pursued another option, an Administrator’s Notice of Physical Loss, which provides access to the same low-interest emergency loans for physical losses. Physical losses include dead livestock and collapsed buildings. The USDA state director’s Jan. 23 request for Colorado farmers and ranchers was approved in Washington, D.C., the next day.
So, the exact benefit being requested by the governor was provided back in January, through a different process. It is because the USDA recognized the need that we explored several options for providing access to emergency loans and found one that fit.
Teresa Lasseter, Farm Service Agency, Administrator, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Merit-pay plan at Metropolitan State College
Re: “Metro looks into merit pay,” Feb. 12 news story.
The Post reports that the trustees of Metropolitan State College of Denver are considering a “pay for performance” plan for faculty. The proposed plan would use tuition and some state funds to fund this $3 million program. Why, I ask, should we pay faculty $3 million when we aren’t contractually obligated to do so?
Let’s give those “superior” faculty the opportunity to sell their lecture series to the university for that “bonus.” Then, those superior lectures would be online, available to all Metro State students (or a wider audience), whose tuition paid for the bonuses in the first place. And the excellent teachers would be remunerated for their excellent work. That way Metro students and taxpayers would get something for the extra cost.
Patrick Mieritz, Colorado Springs
Amendment 41 and special interests
Re: “Lobbyist’s view of Amend. 41,” Feb. 16 guest commentary.
Despite the problems resulting from the wording of Amendment 41 – which will get sorted out eventually – I am insulted by the message presented in the commentary by lobbyist Donnah Moody. She argues that pre-election warnings about the amendment “were dismissed as tainted because of our vested interest in the process. This ignores the fact that all Coloradans have vested interests, because all of us have a stake in some special-interest group.”
Well, I believe that all Coloradans have an interest in good, clean, ethical governance and that this is not a special interest but a general one. Citizens are fed up with government by, for and of the special interests. Whatever happened to governance by, for and of the people?
We elect our representatives to represent all of us and to enact policies that serve the common interests of all citizens. Any system of government that offers up laws and policies favoring special interests of the highest bidder is not a democracy.
Phillip Bugg, Colorado Springs
…
Donnah Moody’s remark that “all Coloradans have vested interests” is, of course, correct. Most of us, however, have only our periodic voting to make our wishes known to government officials, while lobbyists are paid to spend time and money seeking out a legislator’s public preferences and private weaknesses in order to gain advantage. The appeal of Amendment 41 was the chance it gave those of us without deep pockets to offset some of that paid-for influence on the legislature. It was never about scholarships, Nobel Prizes, justly earned awards of merit, or any of the other red herrings Moody mentions.
William V. Burgess, Westminster
—————————————-
Questions about Iran
Re: “Bush: Iran providing bombs,” Feb. 15 news story.
“The idea that somehow we’re manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing (explosives) is preposterous,” said President Bush.
Really? Seriously? The president’s track record doesn’t lend him much credibility. Where is this information coming from?
America, we need to wake up before we start World War III, or the second Crusade. Most of all, we cannot be led down the road of a misinformation campaign to war.
David Stockbridge, Denver
…
The president complains about the Iranians sending weapons to Iraq. Let’s see now …
The U.S. government armed the Taliban to fight the Russians, including stinger missiles to shoot down their helicopters. Think Putin’s recent speech.
The U.S. government assisted Iraq in its war with Iran. Think about Iran’s attitude toward us.
The list of the U. S. “doing good” is almost endless. So we made up the rules. Why should President Bush complain when the Iranians play by our rules? Why is it that those who covet power can’t seem to think about the consequences of their actions? We don’t own the world anymore, and we should stay out of other people’s business. Until we do, the reasons to hate us will persist.
Don Downs, Colorado Springs
—————————————-
Smoking on Capitol Hill
Re: “Smoke blows over in Tancredo incident,” Feb. 16 news brief.
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo has set a bad example in his recent television appearance from his Capitol Hill office. While it is permissible to smoke in one’s congressional office, Tancredo showed poor behavior in his response to staff in a neighboring office who were bothered by the smell of smoke from Tancredo’s cigars.
Given all the widely known health problems from secondhand smoke, one would think that Tancredo might not flaunt the big stogie in our face by saying, “I can do what I want in my office.”
First of all, he sets a bad example in our efforts to prevent our nation’s youth from smoking. Secondly, he is not the kind of “neighbor” on Capitol Hill we hoped he would be. I know he apologized, but this habit of offending and then saying “I’m sorry” is hollow behavior.
Next time, Rep. Tancredo will not get my vote.
Marjorie A. White, Westminster
—————————————-
To send a letter to the editor
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (please send only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 600, Denver, 80202
Fax: 303-954-1502
To reach us by phone: 303-954-1331
—————————————-
Last day to apply for Colorado Voices
Like to write and have something to say? We invite you to apply for Colorado Voices, a column-writing program created in 1999 as a forum for contributors from across the region.
Send us two sample columns, 600 to 700 words each, along with a cover letter describing your background, your interest in Voices and whatever else you think we need to know.
Deadline for entries is 5 p.m. today. Send them to us by e-mail at
voices@denverpost.com, or by mail to Mary Idler, Denver Post Editorial Page, 101 W. Colfax, Suite 600, Denver CO, 80202. Provide your address, phone numbers and e-mail.
Typically, our Voices write every other week for three months. Once published, you’ll get a modest honorarium, impressive clips and bragging rights.
Let your Voice be heard.
