ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail editorial@ets.org.

Delay DeLay!

House Republicans have done something truly appalling. They've knocked down an ethics rule that banned House members from holding leadership positions if they've been indicted on felony charges.

They did it on behalf of House majority leader Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX). A number of his associates have already been indicted by a Texas grand jury and he's expected to take a similar hit in the near future.

I strongly urge you to editorialize against this move. What's astonishing about it is that the Republicans just repealed a provision that THEY put in place back in 1993 when they said they were cleaning up Congress.

This is no mere act of hypocrisy, though. Nor is it just a Beltway issue that's only relevant in Washington. This is a national moral lapse that cuts to the heart of our government. It's an utter outrage, and you need to stand up for the public good and shine a spotlight on it.

Tom DeLay has already been rebuked four times by the House Ethics Committee for various violations. It makes people like me--who play by the rules and pay the taxes that provide for Tom DeLay's salary--even more cynical about politics and American democracy. Just imagine how great Republicans like Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt would react. It's a disgrace.

Please devote some of your coverage to addressing this dirty move. Have the vision to editorialize against it and play the role of the public watchdog. We, the people, are ultimately the caretakers of our democracy. When politicians fail to govern with dignity, we must stand up, speak out and hold them accountable.

Barbara Whitt, Seattle, WA

A Public Good?

Why nationalize health insurance? One look at Cuba, North Korea and even Canada should dispel this notion. The 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall should have taught us that centrally planned socialism doesn't work. After all, health care is not a public good or natural monopoly so one can't argue that government must provide it.

What is a public good, anyway? It is a set of economic conditions in a given field or industry that cause what economists call a "free rider" problem or other "market failure." Market failures are the only justification for regulation. Other justifications represent special interests or desire to redistribute income.

National defense is the classic example of a public good requiring government. If I don't pay my taxes, the airspace over my head is still protected. So I've an incentive not to pay and still get protected: a free ride.

Police, courts, and fire protection are other examples of public goods, or nearly public goods, although even fire service and courts have been successfully privatized and private security abounds.

A public good is not just any necessity of life. Just because something is important does not mean government should do it. A market failure must be present first. Food is probably the most basic necessity, but no one is suggesting socializing agriculture. Socializing health is just as irrational.

Vaccinations are the only part of health care that exhibit common-pool good properties. Like a fire, disease spreads. So if I don't pay my local tax for firemen or to get children vaccinated, I still benefit because I'm protected from these 2 contagious harms anyway.

But general health car--like physicals, surgery and prescription drugs--doesn't have such a "public" spillover effect creating a free ride, so it, by definition, should be left to the private sector.

Just because something is important, even life-or-death important like food and shelter, does not mean government should provide it. Liberals, unless you can point to market failure, I won't buy your arguments for regulation and nationalization.

Jeff E. Jared, Kirkland, WA

Bush's Bankrupt Capital

President Bush said, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it." Translation: President Bush and congressional conservatives plan to drive the country into severe economic distress by permanently extending supply side tax cuts for the wealthy, privatizing Social Security, and giving more handouts to corporations with no means to pay for these schemes. All of this domestic spending will come on top of potentially hundreds of billions of dollars that will be spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have no intention of paying for these schemes. The President's corporate backers will be laughing all the way to the bank while American taxpayers will be forced to clean up the mess long after the president has retired to the ranch.

Sincerely,

Bambi Kokko. Wailuku, HI

Terrorist Judges

On November 12, the Associated Press ran this headline: Ashcroft Says Judges Threaten National Security By Questioning Bush Decisions. The Attorney General stressed the danger to national security in our judicial system "second guessing" the president while in a time of war.

Recently the administration overruled District Judge James Robertson in the trial of Salim Ahmed Hamden, personal chauffer to Bin Laden. Basically, Robertson wanted to try Hamden as a prisoner of war which ended up not complying with Bush's definition of a POW (terrorists don't fight under international norms so they aren't prisoners of war... ironic that we are currently engaged in a war against terrorism but have yet again failed to specify any enemy and so just blindly fire off rounds into the space in front of us, praying we hit a terrorist and therefore justify 9/11 in some way.) Anyways, so the Justice Department is overruling this case, and is granted the right to do so as with others, when we are at war and rulings could threaten national security. Or reveal that our supposed stronghold on international conflicts and affairs is slipping. Whichever. According to Ashcroft, "Courts are not equipped to execute the law." And here I was thinking that was their job. Turns out the judges we elect are purposefully and dangerously undermining the administration and are directly threatening national security. Well, who isn't these days? I'm threatening national security for God's sake. (shakes fist in fury) At least they're replacing him right?

Laurena M, Seattle, WA