Dredging the Willamette not needed, environmentally harmful

Ex-Rep. Liz Van Leeuwen, in her Feb. 24 interview in the Gazette-Times, proposed to dredge the Willamette River at Harrisburg and at "numerous locations," to make it navigable. I do not feel this is necessary. It is navigable now, including even for large power boats, and for commercial shipping, although it is little used for commercial shipping these days.

In the summer, it is mostly used by canoes, kayaks and college students in inner tubes. In the winter, it is little used at all. There is public river access about every 10 miles along the river, including right at Irish Bend.

The Harrisburg boat ramp, about 10 river miles upstream from Irish Bend, looks a bit comical, with a steep concrete ramp down to a large gravel bar. It's clear that it was not designed that way. But it's not a problem. Just drive out on to the gravel bar to launch your craft. Someone familiar with river hydrology would have predicted that gravel bar would appear. And that it will appear again every year if the gravel is removed.

Please do not use our tax money to dredge gravel on the Willamette River. It damages fish habitat, and is not necessary to enjoy this wonderful resource. We need more people to use the river, including even those in the big, smelly, noisy power boats. But let's not say the river is not navigable if you have to launch from a gravel bar.

Jim Sackinger, Corvallis

We all have power to make a difference through our purchases

It has become more and more clear to me that my everyday actions are my real "vote."

I only vote for elected representatives every two, four or six years; there is little I can do to direct their actions in between.

But I can vote for which stores stay open (by spending money in them). I vote for which restaurants stay open each time I go out to eat. I vote for a strong and vibrant downtown when I shop downtown. I vote for beautiful architecture when I choose to shop in lovely buildings. I build the world I see today and will see tomorrow with every expenditure I make.

I can increase the power of my vote by doing surprisingly small things. I can stop using my VISA card, to give my chosen stores a 2-to-5 percent raise. (I stopped into a local store to confirm that paying cash would make a difference; it would!) The bonuses that your credit and debit cards "give you" come right out of your storekeeper's pocket.

I can buy a few things each month towards next year's Christmas (to pass a small stream of money to my chosen stores throughout the year). I can tell these storekeepers that I am doing so, to bring a smile to their faces now and to let them plan for slightly smaller Christmas sales.

I feel like a powerful voter when I do.

Theresa Gibney, Corvallis

Why not hike up the tax on all alcoholic drinks, not just beer?

Personally, I think a booze tax is long over due. But taxing just the beer industry is totally unfair. The tobacco tax, which has been whipped to death, did not just tax Chesterfields or Camels; it taxed the entire tobacco industry.

I do feel a tax is due, but on the entire alcohol industry, evenly. No question, it would bring in millions of dollars. There are many alcohol programs that need financial support, such as the Drug Court, with Judge Janet Holcomb. Many of the homeless are caused by alcohol problems but this is only a splattering of needs for funds.

Even a small tax increase on the alcohol industry would fund many programs other than just alcohol-related. Namely, to the families who have lost a loved one or a person totally maimed by an individual driving under the influence with no insurance or driver's license. With an equal percentage across the board, it not only makes sense but it will not noticeably affect the alcohol industry, therefore resulting in no loss of jobs or businesses.

Come on, legislators, where are your thinking caps? I would guess you are afraid to tackle the big boys?

Les Whittle, Corvallis

Increasing the tax on businesses is not such a far-out idea

In her Feb. 11 letter, Wendy Harber argues for raising business taxes so they pay their "fair share."

In his Feb. 16 response, Phil Hayes said that this argument is "entirely wrong!" He adds, "You don't gain anything by increasing business taxes; you just pay the increased taxes with your purchases."

It's not that simple.

A substantial portion of business income tax - around 40 percent - is passed to investors as lower dividends and capital gains. It is not simply added to prices we pay for goods. Capital is diverted from the private sphere for public benefit.

Maybe this is good, maybe not. Most economists dislike the idea for a variety of esoteric reasons, which seem to center around the way it interacts with other parts of the tax code to "distort" investment decisions. On the other hand, most economists work for private capital. They wrote the rest of the tax code.

What no one can dispute is that our tax code is wildly skewed in favor of investors over wage earners. As Warren Buffet has famously observed, his tax rate is much lower than his secretary's. This imbalance has led to enormous concentrations of wealth, which quite obviously threaten our democracy and the entire world economy.

This is the fundamental problem that Wendy's argument recognizes. Her answer may not be perfect, but far from being entirely wrong, I'd say it's at least 40 percent correct.

For a fairly well-balanced presentation on business income taxes, see www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CorporateTaxation.html.

Jim Roy, Albany

Pharmaceutical drugs inferior to a superior, natural diet

Don Boucher's Jan. 20 letter describes a "false dichotomy" between pharmaceuticals and natural alternatives such as nutrition and herbs - a dichotomy imposed largely by pharmaceutical companies. Honest doctors publicly complain of drug companies "dominating the agenda."

Our "health care system" supplies one biochemical modality - drugs. This drastically limits our choices, creating untold hardship by shutting out more appropriate, safe, cheap and effective alternatives.

For example, nutrition can address many underlying imbalances and deficiencies powering modern illness, but is not recognized, taught or practiced widely. If you want a wider, healthier variety of effective choices, you must go outside the conventional system. Most Americans already do.

The human body distinguishes between familiar elements in food and nutritional supplements vs. foreign agents like pesticides, pollutants, viruses, food additives and medications. No counseling needed. It naturally metabolizes appropriate foods.

Immune system reactions, liver toxicity and nutrient depletion are problems with foreign compounds. Adverse drug reactions, termed "side effects," cause more than 100,000 deaths annually in the United States, according to several JAMA articles.

Using our native intelligence, quality science, targeted nutrition and conventional medicine, we could basically wipe out most modern disease illnesses including heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and loosely termed mental illnesses like depression, anxiety and bipolar disorder.

Integrated medical doctors use nutrition and medications as tools. They regularly describe 80 percent success in ameliorating symptoms of most illnesses at a small fraction of the cost of supplying drugs long-term (and not solving the problem).

Chris Foulke, Corvallis