Send your letters to the WA Free Press, PMB #178, 1463 E Republican St, Seattle 98112, or WAfreepress@gmail.com. Please include your full name and phone number for verification. Keep them short. Letters may be edited for length, spelling and grammar. Letters printed do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the WA Free Press. Letters which respond to WA Free Press articles will be given precedence.

UW Steamrolling Over Icicle Valley

Your article "Underground Lab Threatens Icicle Valley and Alpine Lakes" [Mar/Apr 2005] did a good job in helping get the word out about the threats and impacts of locating a DUSEL near Leavenworth. This lab would be located four miles above Leavenworth's water intake. Various hazardous chemicals and possibly radioactive waste would be transported into Leavenworths watershed for experiments. Would Seattle or any city allow this type of activity in its watershed? The Icicle Valley is one of the most scenic recreational areas in the state. The US Forest Service estimates 400,000 visits per year. Because of national security and defense issues associated with DUSEL, parts of the Icicle may be closed to public use.

Even though there are other sites around the country where DUSEL could easily be located, the University of Washington is pushing to locate it here simply because of the prestige of housing a national lab. The other potential sites are existing mines with permitting and infrastructure largely in place. They can be developed at a fraction of the cost of building a new facility in Icicle Valley. Yet Dr Wick Haxton, nuclear physicist at the UW, is leading the effort to steamroll this project over the community's objections. He admitted at an October 2004 meeting that even if the community didn't want it, the UW would proceed anyway. Latest figures show 1,364 against with only 34 in favor. This project needs to be stopped.

Fred Carani

More Ways to Save Watts

"Saving Energy in the Kitchen" [March/April 2005] has good ideas about saving electricity. I would like to suggest the following ways to put a real dent in your light bill.

1) Use a clothesline instead of an electric dryer. Dryers use electricity like a Hummer uses gasoline.

2) Have an electrician turn down the thermostat on your hot water tank, another high consumption appliance. I run our tank at about 115 degrees F.

3) Install a switch, in a handy place like the kitchen , that will turn the hot water tank on and off. then turn off the tank and coast until you need hot water again.

4) Avoid the goldfish bowl look so prevalent these days, i.e., leaving major windows of the house undraped. there is a lot of heat lost thought glass.

5) Skip a shower once in a while.

Finally, a few ideas for reducing waste.

6) Avoid, when possible, unrecyclable plastic containers.

7) Drink water out of the faucet--cost: 1/8 of a cent per gallon. compare this with the price of a gallon of bottled water. And think of the three billion plastic containers manufactured each year for this bizarre commerce.

8) Re-use shopping bags.

Christian Melgard

Taxing Debate

As I read "A Working Stiff's Tax Reform Proposal" [March/April 2005] the first impression I get is that it is written by an economist or tax consultant, or both, not by a "Working Stiff." I may be unqualified to comment on this article because much of it I don't understand. But much of what I do understand I disagree with.

"Resurrect the wealth transfer tax" should include canceling the mammoth tax cuts and other benefits to the rich enacted by acting President George W. Bush.

"Enact a National Sales Tax," a regressive tax, would be acting against the best interest of any "Working Stiff." I vote against any and all proposals, no matter how beneficial, that are to be paid for by increasing the sales tax.

"Integrate Payroll Taxes with the Income Tax," as proposed, would change the Social Security system that has worked well for over 60 years. Social Security is a government-run old are retirement insurance plan for working Americans, and therefore a payroll tax on working people, that is supposed to go into a separate fund. If this tax were integrated with income taxes, it would have to be separated later. The integration of these taxes may be beneficial if Social Security was revised to cover all Americans.

Then the author wanders into Alice's Wonderland.

"Support for Young Families" contains some good ideas but borders on socialism, which I approve of, but can't be initiated through tax reform. As proposed, at 21 a mother would become eligible for 20 years supplemental income, and 20 years Social Security credit, from which she would pay a $30 tax from her $600 for retirement! Why give money with one hand and take part back with the other? Why not make the payment $570? Does the author suggest compulsory savings? I thought the 20 years of Social Security credit was to take care of her retirement.

Here it is, under "Retirement Security," required savings! Ten percent of income into stocks and bonds. Sounds like Bush's private investment for Social Security plan, a giveaway to Wall Street. All retirement benefits could disappear with a market downturn, which is very likely.

Anyone thinking of reforming the income tax should make simplifying it a priority. The tax code is so large and entangled it could not be read and understood by the average person, let alone remembered. A person could get two different answers to the same question from two different employees of the IRS. Simplifying the income tax would reduce the number of employees in the IRS, but would also reduce the number of consultants and tax preparers needed.

I propose canceling all sales, use, and value-added taxes and suggest a flat ten-percent state and federal tax on all income for individuals, with absolutely no deductions or exceptions, and the same tax on net profit on all business and corporations doing business in the US. this should overcome their moving overseas by purchasing a post office box in some foreign country to avoid paying taxes.

I would eliminate the deduction for advertising. Companies that advertise get paid twice for their advertising, once by adding this cost to the product they sell, and again by deducting the cost of advertising from their tax. Only with this flawed system can companies pay one million dollars for a two-second TV ad during the Super Bowl. Only the outrageous cost of ads allows TV producers to pay actors a million dollars or more for 20 minutes of acting for a 30-minute show.

Karl I. Hennum

Editor's reply: Laurie Kimberling's "Working Stiff" article last issue was her own view of what positive tax reform could look like. But I'd like to say that some of her ideas seem fairly compatible with yours. For example, Ms Kimberling--like yourself--also recommends doing away with deductions.

Headstone of the 21st Century

The history of the US is one filled with risks big and small when we speak of wars won and lost, whether for a noble cause or not. Here we are in the 21st century and the US is headlong in a war fueled by a religion that most people in the US have no understanding of, yet we are willing to turn our sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers over to Uncle Sam while he reaches in with an iron hand and tries to push, probe, or destroy all who would rather fight than change their way of life. In 1996 the Islamic militia of Osama Bin Laden declared war against the US and at that time we chose to take the threat lightly, yet when they struck on 9/11 we were not ready and surprised by the damage and pain. I ask why?

There are no rules of war, especially when the people we are at war with are fighting for their religious beliefs and their individuality as a people, and do not want the change that Uncle Sam is demanding. To underestimate these people could result in the iron hand of Uncle Sam pulling the cord on his own guillotine, and by doing so writing the headstone of the US in the 21st century. The US has underestimated these people from the start, and I believe it's time to open our eyes to the threat they truly pose.

Jesse Lancaster

Editor's reply: I agree with much of your sentiment, but where exactly is the main threat to the US coming from? Does it come from anti-American Islamic militia, or does it instead come from the iron-handed stance of Uncle Sam? In the second case, we are causing the threat to ourselves.

Doug Collins

Real Reason for Iraq War

The Bush administration clearly lied cooking up reasons to invade Iraq. Most of the world recognized the lies: that's why most of the civilized world hasn't supported us in this venture. We invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses.

There is little satisfaction in realizing this "revelation." We have nearly destroyed another poor third-world nation's economy, killed unnumbered and uncounted Iraqis, sent our best and brightest to again die in a foreign land and spent billions of dollars on the war machine instead of education or health care.

Why then did we invade Iraq, if not because of 9-11, weapons of mass destruction, the alleged (and untrue) Saddam/Osama bin laden ties, the fact that Saddam was a vicious dictator, or Iraq's oil resources? It's my opinion that none of the above was the major reason.

While oil was probably one consideration in cranking up the US war machine, I think that the Iraqi invasion was one of many such third world invasions designed to justify the continuation of our military-industrial complex. The fall of the Soviet Union in the 90s started talk of a peace dividend, and a lowering of taxes which fund the military-industrial complex.

However, an estimated 7.5 million Americans, including military, are employed by the military industrial complex. Since the elites lacked the vision to find other employment for 7.5 million Americans, they conspired to justify continuing the military industrial complex by inventing fear and third world country invasions.

Thus, elites continue to profit while others die.

Howard Pellett