Levy deserves community support
A few years ago, when my daughter was ready to start school, I considered home-schooling her. I had always loved learning and felt capable of teaching grade-school material. But, like a lot of parents, I wavered between public school and home schooling. Now I am glad that we chose public school and want to share our experience at Olympic View Elementary School.
Kindergarten came with a firm, but pleasant, teacher who built a solid foundation for the class and improvements were made all year long. The extremely helpful and friendly staff made it easy to feel welcome in the school. I soon found myself volunteering. By helping at the school, I was making a difference in my child’s education and also in other children’s educations.
Olympic View made me feel appreciated and I wanted to return the favor by thanking them for all of their patience, time, compassion, guidance and, especially, knowledge, that I’ve seen them give the students.
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
The replacement levy will have a great impact on our public schools. This is not a new tax, and will be very devastating to our schools and children if not passed. I’ve seen first-hand some great accomplishments by our teachers and students. They work hard each day and deserve to have their basic needs met that the levy now funds. I would hate to see any more school funding cuts and hope that we think of the children of Washington state and their future when voting on the replacement levy.
DONNA SWOPE, Olympia
Everyone should have health coverage
I am writing to say that all of Congress should stop getting taxpayer-funded health care until all citizens of this country receive the same.
Taxpayers subsidize all in Congress, half of whom are millionaires, and that is not right. They argue that a public option and socialized medicine is wrong. That is what Congress receives. That is totally hypocritical and absurd.
As for funding a public option health care system, it seems that at least 100 million, and probably more, Americans pay for health insurance every year. As a teacher I know that a family plan costs the average person around $1,000 a month and a single policy is around $300 to $400. If people were taxed $200 a month, higher or lower, based on income, the government would raise up to possibly $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion a year to fund health care. The tax would be graduated based on a person’s income until their income would be low enough that they would be exempt.
Since Congress’ bill is around $800 billion to $900 billion for 10 years, it seems fair to say that all people could be covered with free health care with a public option. All the extra money used to pay premiums would come back to the taxpayers as extra income that they would use at their own discretion. I know most people would be willing to pay around $200 a month instead of up to $1,000. Please, explain why this could not be done.
ERNIE MALICK, Olympia
'Kids of hope' bill is unnecessary
I don’t usually involve myself too much in politics for several reasons, but in this case I’m willing to make an exception.
I recently caught wind of a Senate Bill 6249 that was introduced into this year’s session. It is the brainchild of Democratic Sen. Rosa Franklin, D-Tacoma. This bill, if passed, would in summary, change the existing language in every state document that contains the negative-sounding phrase “kids at risk” or “students at risk” to the more positive-sounding “kids at hope.”
I understand the merits of this are worthy; however, I’m not sure that the common folk understands the cost to the taxpayer to not only introduce this bill, run it through its paces, then if passed, the cost to change every instance of the old terminology in all state documents to the new, politically correct phrase.
We live in a time where not only we common folk are feeling the current fiscal crunch, but the government tells us they are also feeling it.
That is what is so astounding, that amid the budget and financial crisis that faces this Legislature, that they would even entertain a bill such as this. I urge each and every voting taxpayer out there to phone, e-mail, text, fax or write your legislator to let them know that this bill is not government being financially responsible.
STEVE DURANT, Olympia
Obama serves lobbyists, not voters
Barack Obama has betrayed his base on foreign policy, economics and health care.
During the campaign, Obama courted the anti-war vote against Hillary Clinton. In office, he seeks a record $708 billion for war.
Obama bailed out Wall Street but did little for working Americans, and even less for the jobless.
Progressives wanted bottom-up economic stimulus – a jobs program like President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s WPA to rebuild crumbling infrastructure. Instead, Obama stimulated the elite with trickle-down Reaganomic bonuses. He refuses to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act and regulate the banking industry.
In health care reform, Obama simply lied. He promised transparency, with hearings on C-Span.
But White House memos reveal Obama’s Chicago-style back-room deals with Big Pharma and private health care. He paid lip service to a public option, but never had the fire in his belly for a government program to make the insurance cartel competitive. Obamacare is a massive transfer of money from taxpayers to health care corporations.
The president will sign anything lobbyists put on his desk and call it “reform.”
We shouldn’t be surprised: Goldman Sachs was his chief campaign contributor and insurance companies gave him $20 million vs. $7 million for McCain.
Obama talks change, but his actions are old school, lacking a coherent policy vision.
Offering no creative synthesis, he simply takes a little from the left, a little from the right, and concocts a lukewarm centrist pablum.
Like most Republicrats, Barack Obama serves lobbyists, not voters. Progressives won’t be conned again. We’ll vote for Third Party candidates.
FRED LAMOTTE, Steilacoom