LETTERS: Raising gas tax would penalize some; intelligence should be shared
Gas tax would penalize some
Yesterday I read an opinion about raising the gas tax in Colorado to pay for maintenance and improvements to the roads that need work - and lots of it. The writer stated that "Gasoline taxes are the fairest way for funding our highways as those who use them more, causing more congestion and wear, pay more." How exactly does this relate in today's age of super-fuel-efficient vehicles?
For example, I drive a 2001 Ford Sport Trac with a 20 gallon tank, and that gets roughly 18 mpg in the city. This means I get roughly 360 miles per tank. In contrast, someone who just bought a 2017 Dodge Ram 1500 HFE with a 26-gallon tank gets roughly 24 mpg in the city. This means they get roughly 624 miles per tank - 1.7 times the amount I do.
If we both drove the same amount of miles (say 624), I would need to fill my tank twice - once at the onset and once before reaching the end. A gas tax would not and will not charge people who use the roads more. It simply charges people who can't afford to buy a new, super-fuel-efficient vehicle and places more of the burden for road maintenance costs on them as well.
Just going from point A to point B
Thomas Antkow's rant in The Gazette is classic "bikelash" with much misinformation and a lot of anger. First, the fact that you pay a lot in gas taxes isn't a badge of honor; it just means that you either drive your car too much and/or you have a gas guzzler. Second, those gas taxes don't pay a dime for our local roads and streets (or bike lanes, paths, etc.). Neither do your registration fees, tags, etc. As Wes Prichard pointed out, funds to maintain our local streets come from the city's general fund and additional sales taxes (which we all pay). Third, you imply that most/all motorists follow all traffic laws while all bicyclists are scofflaws. Of course there are cyclists who ride dangerously and they should be ticketed when possible. But, the plain old facts indicate that, by far, accidents between drivers and cyclists are due to driver error and road rage.
Lastly, you state that cyclists' mantra is "gimme, gimme, gimme" and that noncyclists are "fed up" with our requests for more infrastructure. When one starts with close to zero assets, you bet we are going to demand our "fair share" of safe infrastructure.
In the end, bicyclists are just like motorists - we're just folks going from Point A to Point B, and we'd like to be able to get there as safely as possible.
Biased major news media
I remember when we had reporters like Walter Cronkite who reported the news without bias. Now our socialist left wing is dominated by the majority of our press people who seem determined to destroy the concept of free press. The Democrats lost the election. They refuse to accept that and now seem hell bent on overthrowing our government.
Socialist/Marxist college kids are burning and rioting at their campuses, protesting free speech of the conservative right wing and their professors are indoctrinating students at schools like Berkley in the art of how to destroy democracy. Major news media are so far biased to the left that they think it is their job to destroy the American system of government.
When they attack the duly-elected president and accuse him without verifiable proof, they act like they are the judge, jury and executioner. They do their own "investigations" to suit their personal ends. When they are questioned about their sources they scream about their rights to protect their sources and refuse to reveal where the get their "information." Most of our media newspapers and major networks have morphed into a grotesque political manipulation machine.
Intelligence should be shared
Think about this: We get intelligence that a common enemy is planning some disastrous action that will cause many casualties. Intelligence information is of no use if we don't do something with it. Even if the nefarious action is not aimed at America, we have a moral obligation to let whoever the target may be know that danger is imminent. The other side of that is to stay silent and, what, gloat if misfortune befalls our current nonfriends? Terrorist activity is abhorrent no matter who is the victim.
All lives matter, and if our president thought that sharing some intelligence that might save lives was a good idea, he should be applauded rather than pilloried in the press. The president doesn't get enough information in his security briefing to be able to damage our intelligence networks; hopefully the community learned from the previous president's outing of the Pakistani doctor who assisted in locating Osama bin Laden and now is not among us. Our country might benefit if we could start implying that we have sources among the enemy; they have a track record of killing their own.
Michael S. Welsh
President was legally elected
James Comey: Sour grapes, vindictiveness, leaks, dishonesty, arrogance. For one thing, Comey is not credible, having been caught in false testimony to Congress. No one knows when he wrote the memo about his meeting with the president. Also, leaking is a crime that people in the FBI should surely know. And the fact that these leaks are done anonymously shows fear in the leakers.
Don't you realize our president was legally elected? You are trying to bring him down by what you print and sadly many people who are ignorant of truth and believe what you print. During Obama's tenure, people said respect the office if not the man. Why can't you do the same with President Trump?