Another Point of View – Douglas C. Bankhead, M.D.

You have really missed the mark on this one!

In writing this editorial, did you consider why the office person answering the phone asks "What kind of insurance do you have?" In the vast majority of cases, the answer is simple. The insurance company’s decision to "manage" or "restrict" health care is the reason. For example, your family’s DMBA or Altius insurance plan was most likely offered to you for your employer. Regardless of your choice between these policies, there are certain physicians contracted by that insurance company to treat patients covered under the policy. Should you make the choice to see a physician not under contract by that insurance company, then the insurance company most likely will not cover the physician’s charges, and you, Duane, will be stuck with the bill! Asking you "What kind of insurance do you have?" is not an attempt to restrict your access to medical care or a demonstration of the lack of "empathy and compassion and understanding," but rather protects you from the unnecessary burden of having to pay out-of-pocket for medical services.

In truly life-threatening medical emergencies, regardless of your medical insurance coverage or the lack thereof, you can go to any hospital emergency room and you will not be denied care. The government has mandated this access.

In your editorial, the statement was made that "in modern health care, the spreadsheet’s bottom line is given priority status!" I couldn’t agree with you more, but it is the insurance company’s bottom line, not the physicians, that is important. In my 21 years of practice, my reimbursement from insurance companies has not begun to keep up with inflation. In fact, Medicare today rewards my service to those over 65 at 27% of the rate (not adjusted for inflation) of 21 years ago when I started in practice. Every patient that I care for has immediate, unlimited credit; I never receive payment at the time of service (unlike the appliance repairman that fixes my broken dishwasher), and can only hope that I am paid, at a discounted rate of course, for my services at a later date. Contrast this to any other services sector in society!

Your statement that "the system is in crisis" is absolutely correct. Every year physician’s over head and the cost of professional liability insurance increases (mine will nearly double in cost for year 2003), but reimbursement from insurance companies and Medicare decreases. Medicare is currently planning an approximately 4% cut beginning in January. In my opinion, the overwhelming problem in healthcare in the next decade will be the lack of availability of medical care as more and more physicians are forced to quit their practices due to the spiraling costs of doing business. This will especially affect those of Medicare age, and that, Duane, especially affects you and me.

Duane, don’t blame physicians for this mess! Research the source of these problems, and include the real facts in another of your editorials.

Another Point of View – Brock L. Place, Health Care Administrator

Your editorial suggests that healthcare providers are losing or have lost their compassion and empathy for taking care of patients and that the bottom line is 1st priority.

Having been in heath care administration for almost thirty years, I beg to differ. I believe that providers still desire to do what is best for the patient. The public must recognize that healthcare is a profession just like any other profession or business that one chooses to engage in. Providers need to be paid for what they do. KSL or any other business needs to be paid for their advertising. KSL or any other business has overhead to pay for - same is true for healthcare providers. Does KSL tier their pricing based on a business’ ability to pay. Could you afford to advertise if some third party (insurance company) had the ability to tell you what they would pay you to advertise for them.

The fact of the matter is that healthcare providers are held "hostage" by third party payers who are intent on preserving their profitability at the expense of healthcare providers. As our costs go up, our ability to get paid for what a we do is ‘controlled’ for the most part by insurance companies.

Are healthcare providers obligated to provide care to those who cannot pay? Can KSL afford to give away their advertising without being paid? Can a grocery store afford to have people who cannot pay drive away without paying? The business principles are the same for KSL as they are for any other business including healthcare providers. Our government needs to step up and establish reasonable fee schedules for indigent people who cannot afford to pay for quality healthcare which all classes of our society expect!

Thank you for listening!

Another Point of View – Karlene Ator, Doctor's Wife

I was listening to the radio this morning and heard your editorial on what is wrong with healthcare. I was disappointed at your lack of knowledge and empathy as to what is wrong in today’s healthcare system. First of all, let me explain that I am married to a doctor. We have six children that my husband supports. He has a job that he goes to everyday and works long hours (many times 7:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m.). While he is at work he is very kind and caring to his patients. He is on call every other week for 24 hours a day. He went to school for 12 years after high school so that he could treat his patients competently, at the same time trying to support a growing family on sometimes no income. So is it so wrong that he should want to be paid for the time he spends with patients doing his job? Do you expect to be paid when you go to work? Does anyone criticize you for expecting such a thing? Where is your empathy, people need to hear what’s going on in the world, so why don’t you do it without expecting to be paid? The answer is obvious, although it may be something you enjoy doing and choose to do, you probably have a family to support also. (I haven’t even mentioned the gargantuan size debt we have to pay back for going to school to become a doctor.)

The real problem is not that doctors want to be paid for doing their job, it is the fact that the doctors cannot trust that they will be fairly reimbursed for treating a person with kindness and empathy. If the patient does not have insurance, sometimes the bill will go unpaid for months, even years. And yet this same patient comes in time after time expecting to be treated for free. Is that right? (And I’m not talking about urgent care visits.) Or suppose a patient does have insurance, the doctors are kind enough to pay someone to work for them who does all the paperwork involved with billing the thousands of insurance providers so that they can be paid for services rendered. And then when that bill is submitted, the doctor is told by the insurance company how much he can charge for the treatment he gives or that he cannot charge at all for providing a treatment that he deemed necessary or needful. (Do you know of any other profession where the person providing a service is told by someone who isn’t even trained in the profession what they can charge or what services or treatments they can provide?)

I do not think the motivation behind most doctors who ask for insurance information is because they are getting rich and money talks. The truth is they are trying to provide for their families and also for all those who work in their office that they need to pay so that they in turn can provide for their families. I know that there are some doctors out there who are in it just for the money and they don’t care about the patients, but they are the exceptions. Please think more about your careless blame of a profession that provides needed and valuable service. Think about where the blame really belongs; insurance companies that won’t pay. Patients that won’t pay or provide accurate information so that the insurance companies can be billed. Lawsuits that are filed should a doctor make a mistake (doctors are not perfect, although on the whole they have a pretty good track record, which means doctors have to pay for ever increasing malpractice insurance. Some doctors are quitting because they cannot afford the malpractice insurance which is sometimes $200,000.00+ a year depending upon the specialty. And then there are the lawyers who are getting very rich suiing for incredible amounts of money.

I, too, believe that there is a problem with our healthcare system, but the blame is not the doctors. I think generally they are trying to give the best treatment they can and is it so very wrong to think that they would get paid for a job well done?

Another Point of View – Lynn F. Price, Former Chair, Salt Lake County Republican Party

I, too, am concerned about more and more people being shut out of the political process. However, without a closed primary, even more are going to be shut out because the parties will find ways to negate the need for a primary.

People who are in snit over the closed Republican Primary should consider the following:

1. Contrary to a closed primary being an attempt to limit participation in the political process, it is an attempt to include more people in the process.

2. Prior to the mid 1990's, much of what the political parties did was governed by state statute. However, in the mid 1990's, the court ruled that each political party (not the government) was responsible for choosing its candidates for the November General Election and for setting the rules by which they chose those candidates.

3. That process has four steps: (a) finding people who are willing to run as candidates, (b) holding party caucuses (mass meetings) where delegates to the state and county conventions are elected; (c) the respective state or county conventions where delegates reduce the number of candidates running for each office to one or two candidates; (d) the primary election where the entire party membership narrows that field of candidates down to just one per office.

4. Up until the late 1990's, a candidate needed 70% of the delegate vote to emerge from convention uncontested. However, after the court’s ruling, that was dropped to 60%.

5. In the mid 1980's, the number of delegates to the Salt Lake County Republican Convention was 2100+. Last year, that number was just 1400. Thus, a candidate in a legislative district having 60 delegates in the mid 1980's needed 42 votes to emerge from convvention uncontested. That same district last year would have a reduced number of delegates (40) and would only need 24 votes (60% of 40) to emerge uncontested, assuming all delegates were in attendance.

6. Many legislative district have even fewer delegates. District 23 only has 23 delegates which means only 14 votes were required to emerge from convention with no primary.

For those of you who resent having to declare yourparty affiliation in order to vote in the Republican Primary, consider the following: there are many within the party who would like to see the current required percent be reduced to 50% plus 1 in order to try to avoid having any primary at all so candidates will not engage in inter-party squabbles and can save their campaign dollars for the general election. If that happens, there eventually won’t even be a primary election.

The laws that were in place earlier helped ensure that government would be "of the people, by the people, and for the people," However, that is not necessarily the major concern of the political parties. Their job is to get their candidates elected, even if that means reducing the number of delegates to the convention and reducing the percent of the vote required to emerge without a primary, or trying to negotiate behind scenes to only have one candidate run for each office, which is the practice of some political parties.

Currently, a closed primary is the only way to include a greater number of voters in having a say in who our candidates will be in November. If we do not have a closed primary, the push to reduce that percent will increase. There are those of us who continue to fight against that idea, but the activists and those pushing for such a change are the one who attend the party caucuses and get elected as delegates and as party officers, and they are the ones who ultimately will have the final say when things come to a vote.

Ideally, we should go to a closed direct primary and eliminate the nominating convention altogether and allow the general membership of each political party to determine who will represent the party on the November ballot. (Incidentally, Utah is only one of three states still using the convention system to choose candidates.) However, this would require that the legislature get involved and unless citizens lobby for such a thing it won’t happen. Our current system is gaged to help the candidates, not ensure public participation. However, a closed primary is a fair compromise.

Another Point of View – Will Mc Gregor

I agree with your editorial regarding the Legacy Parkway with one exception. You said this is not the time for "the blame game." Such an outrageous waste of taxpayer money requires that someone bear some blame. This is more than a small mistake. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed that the State disregarded the law. You need to have the courage and integrity to say that the Governor bears responsibility.

Another Point of View – John E. Barnhill

I must respectfully take issue with your recent editorial, "Growth is Coming" (September 27, 2002). I agree with your assessment that a large number of new babies are being born in Utah, and that educating them will be a challenge.

You have correctly identified the problem; too many people having too many children.

Unfortunately, your editorial ignores the problem, and advocates throwing money at the symptoms. Tax breaks for private schools? Tax increases? That solves nothing.

Why doesn’t KSL advocate a responsible approach towards helping people determine family sizes that are appropriate for their economic situation and for our educational system? It’s called family planning. You should advocate family planning before you advocate raising our taxes.

It is irresponsible for KSL to ignore the facts and then advocate "solutions." It only makes you part of the problem.

Another Point of View – Marc Heileson, Associate Southwest Representative of the Sierra Club

In response to your 07/12/02 editorial "Mother Nature's Message," we appreciate your acknowledgement of the important part fire plays in forest ecosystems. However, we were startled to discover that KSL would repeat the erroneous claim made by Senator Kyl from Arizona stating, "The Forest Service spends 40-percent of its annual budget defending itself against environmental groups." Shortly after this statement, Senator Kyl was forced to clarify. He referred to a study by the National Academy of Public Administration that states, "Regulatory compliance consumes 40-percent of direct work at the national forest level."

It is a gargantuan stretch to imply that 40-percent of a 4.3 billion dollar budget goes to "defending against environmental groups," It is simply not true. In addition, since forest regulations are primarily based on scientifically based goals aimed at protecting forest resources, it is pleasing that 40-percent of direct work goes into following them. Perhaps, it should be even higher.

The truth is environmental groups are not obstructing Forest Service efforts to reduce fire danger. In fact, a recent General Accounting Office report demonstrated that last year environmental groups only appealed 1-percent of the Forest Service's fire danger reducing projects and had not take any of them to court. The real problem is that we are suffering from the past century's Forest Service policies of extinguishing every fire and allowing timber companies to cut the older, fire-resistant trees instead of the younger ones. With these conditions along with our current drought, normal fires that cleanse undergrowth have become catastrophic crown fires that burn everything.

To restore forest health, fire must be returned and included in managing forest ecosystems. Intelligent tinkering involves saying all the parts. Environmental groups are not standing in the way of this effort.

Another Point of View – J. Powers,

Thank you for your input on the "Closed Republican Primary."

You are targeted to receive a lot of anti-e-mail.

Many of us in the party were and still are against the "Closed Primary" as established. We are quickly and significantly growing in strength. Your getting the message out helps.

The question I have asked and am waiting for an answer on is "Did it do as advertised?"

Proponents said it would keep Democrats out of our Primary and, therefore, help the more conservative Republicans with the Primary. The complaint was the lesser Conservative Candidates were winning.

So as I look around at the post-Primary results, I have asked where is their example? I am still waiting.

Not even Hughes-Cassaday was decisive as both were very conservative and it was an 102 vote difference.

Another Point of View – Todd Starley,

Farmers don't send a fox into the henhouse to gather the eggs.

Once again you and KSL have an opinion that goes against a long standing process, by voicing your displeasure with the closed Republican Primaries. The closed primaries were voted on and approved by a majority vote at the State convention in 2001. This is how the system works, and I voted for the closure because it makes sense to do it.

Does it make any sense to allow those parties or individuals, bent on decreasing the power or ability of the Republican Party, to vote for our candidates? I would say not! It is a "Republican" Primary, and it should stay that way. Should you or I be allowed to judge a beauty contest, when neither one of us knows anything about it? Should the voters of another party that do not subscribe to or uphold Republican values be allowed to cast a vote for a Republican candidates that does not adhere to the Republican principles as much as another candidate would?

Allowing non-Republicans to vote in the Primary only waters down the effectiveness of the Primary, and would give the people a weaker candidate when compared to the other parties.

Allowing closed primaries is both legal and Constitutional, so why do you and KSL continue to be negative about a process that was created for the welfare of our society? It truly is puzzling. What is KSL's agenda here? Is it to be the voice of truth and reason, or is it to follow the will and desire of the Governor's office or those that have undo influence in society?

Another Point of View – Jo Ann Bennett,

I was an elected delegate at the Republican convention in 2001 when we voted to require only Republicans to be able to select the Republican candidate. This makes perfect sense and is constitutional and reasonable. Is KSL looking for truth and reason on this issue? Too many people would like to have a voice to interfere in a party they have not chosen. The closed primary is protection from fraud.

Another Point of View – Maryann Christensen,

For any out there who oppose closed primaries, either Republican or Democratic, you do not understand the purpose of Primary Elections!

In a two party system, each party selects its own candidate to run in the General Election. Primaries are NOT a preliminary to the General Election, they are part of the process of each party selecting their candidate. The candidate CAN be selected during the Party's convention, but if it's too close to call according to the Party by-laws, then the PARTY MEMBERS at large are asked to participate in the selection.

Knowing that, it makes PERFECT sense for Republicans (or Democrats) to hold a primary which is un-tainted by members of other parties. We don't invite them to our convention – why should we invite them to our primary?

The sad part of this entire situation is that the Republican Party leadership has NOT supported the wishes of the state delegates who properly and appropriately initiated this change. They COULD have educated the voting public on why closed primaries ARE appropriate. Instead, they undermined it, betraying the delegates and the party system.

Another Point of View - Joe A. Rhodes,

It is extremely difficult and frustrating to express an opinion that is contrary to that of the predominate Utah religion. For example, the standard and ultimate defense as exhibited by Rep. Jim Hansen's response to anyone opposing the sale, is that it doesn't matter if the opposition is based upon logic, common sense, or public majority, other than in Utah, it is "Mormon Bashing," and is thus to be ignored.

Therein lies the basis of my (a Lutheran, Wyoming native) opposition to the purchase of the Martin's Cove site by "The Church". It is fundamentally wrong, in my belief, for anyone power group, be it Catholic, Lutheran, Muslim, or Jewish, to use their power for their benefit in enhancing the public perception of their image at the expense of the American people who now own the site.

The precedent that will be established by this proposed sale of public land is far-reaching and frightening to all parties, including "The Church". For example, the purchase of the Mountain Meadows Massacre site by the descendents of the victims of that massacre would not be of benefit to anyone involved in that chapter of our history. The Dakota, Arapaho, and Northern Cheyenne Nation's, purchase of the Little Big Horn Battle Field (formerly Custer's Battle Field) and the possible restricting of public access to such a historic site, would be a serious loss to all of us of our western culture.

Another Point of View - Colleen Thistle,

State lawmakers are taking well-deserved HEAT for going ahead with the Capitol renovation. They need to stop! Think about it for a minute. Fragile Capitol building-OR-illiterate children? Buildings-Children? It's should be a no brainer for someone with an education. It's CHILDREN! If we do not educate the children of this state, we will end up with a bunch of illiterates that will continue having too many children themselves due to lack of education and money because they can not get better jobs and careers to pay taxes in this state. Utah is one of the highest taxed states in this nation. We need to start spending our money on the future of Utah (CHILDREN) not some old building from the past. There will be no future for this state if there is no education for our children.

If KSL feels so strongly about remodeling that old rock on the hill, then YOU pay for it. I want my grandchildren to be educated in the same or better manner then my children were.

Another Point of View - Deron Holt,

I agree with the majority of what was said in "Managing Water" May 29, 2002. In addition to that, I think that a tax incentive should be offered to those individuals who install water saving sprinkler systems, i.e. drip system for their flower and vegetable gardens. Claims are that they save up to 70%. If this is true, a tax incentive may be the ticket to get people to invest in water conservation for this year and all the years to come.

Another Point of View – Representatives James A. Ferrin,

It should be difficult for ideas to become law. And so it is. The long and arduous process is specified in our state constitution. The process rightly forces an idea to pass a myriad of legislative and public tests, hearings, and votes, culminating with the approval of the governor or that of a 2/3 majority of the legislature. This is the process specified in our constitution and it is a good process. So, when KSL calls a veto override session an "unnecessary waste of time" they dismiss the value of the process. KSL reveals its true agenda by suggesting that the governor "appropriately" vetoed the bills in the first place. But, under the constitution, 2/3 of the freely and locally elected representatives of the people felt differently about one of the vetoed bills.

I believe it is not only appropriate for the legislature to call a veto override session, I feel it is their duty to do so, if there is a 2/3 majority support for any vetoed bill. This has nothing to do with displaying "political muscle" as KSL suggests. It is, in fact, allowing the constitution process to fully work.

Another Point of View – Lee Ray,

I was listening to your comments on Friday with regards to the water conservation. I appreciated your comments and fully agree with them.

With the current four-year drought that our state is in, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise to us. Similar comments were made last year in regards to the same subject. Sadly however, it would appear that many of our local city and state governments believed that this conservation did not apply to them. I remember driving around town during the hottest times of the summer last year and seeing government lawn's being watered during the noon-day sun. I know that some of the media tried to tactfully bring this to their attention, then . . . to no avail.

I find it very disheartening when our local governments; the ones that should be setting the example, choose to defer their responsibility by abusing one of Utah's most precious resource.

I am hopeful that enough officials running our governments heard your comments this year and will join with the rest of us in conserving water as well.

Another Point of View – John McNary,

When the founding fathers established a representative democracy, or republic as we say, it was because they understood that pure democracies are as unstable in their life as they are violent in their death. Throughout world history, they have not lasted. Even though these founders could have instituted a pure democracy, they thought it far more wise and prudent to allow the citizens to elect men and women who they knew and trusted to represent their views, to serve in their government positions. Such men and women, hopefully and in fact, have provided a stability to our government like no other in history. They act as buffers in the governmental process against the up and down emotions of the citizens, which are easily swayed by the events of the day, the media and the current government, while providing steering currents that can be affected by the citizens on a regular and dependable basis.

Neighborhood caucus meetings are the finest example of this political philosophy. Neighbors and friends who live house to house join together to elect those who they know and know well in most cases, who will represent their ideals and views in fashioning the party platforms and electing candidates for office. The process occurs on such an intimate neighborhood level that it is almost immune to the influence of the opportunistic candidates, the existing political office holders and the media. This is very uncomfortable to all three of these parties, who long for more control of the political process. Your editorial is a typical reaction of the media, and is in complete sympathy with many office holders who long to insulate themselves further from their constituents. Neighborhood caucus meetings are frankly the only way that the average citizen can actually find access and exert significant influence in the political process if he is interested in doing so.

Your concern that caucus meetings "can become a forum for zealots with strong ideological views, or for special interest groups that sometimes dominate the decision-making" may be true in isolated cases in some precincts where the people are particularly sympathetic or apathetic. In such a case, the residents either get what they want or what they deserve. But it is next to impossible to exercise such an influence over a significant number of precincts contrary to the knowledge of the residents for the same reason it is impossible for the current office holders and the media to exercise such influence. The caucuses are too intimate and close to the people for neighbors and friends not to know how their delegates are going to vote and what their ideology is. If anything, the caucuses provide more opportunity for inclusion of the views of those who current office holders and the media may consider extreme, but who actually represent the views of their precinct. Would we really want to exclude their voice? Is it diversity we really seek, or is it imply a uniform political correctness without any reminders that there really are other ways to look at things? To eliminate neighborhood caucuses is to remove the citizen's teeth, and then provide them oatmeal at the media's trough.

The American tradition is to give not only voice to all views, but opportunity for influence. Only then does the process become a true "animated contest of freedom" which gives true opportunity to all, even those the media and the current office holders find distasteful, uncomfortable, or even disrespectful of the prevailing political correctness. Well did Samuel Adams say "If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

Another Point of View – Scott Fairbourn,

I'm in agreement that spam is a big problem on the internet. I have to laugh though about the story aired on KSL News and in your editorial.

Do you really believe that a state law will curb the amount of spam sent to Utah's Internet users? I really have to disagree with you. There is no way that you can stop anyone outside of Utah from spamming to those inside Utah's border. You risk becoming a laughing stock with such a naive look at the Internet.

I believe the pressure has to be put on the ISP to turn off the accounts of people who use their service to send spam. If the problem of spam is approached in this manner, from the top down, you don't need any regulation. Let me explain. If the spam is coming from a certain IP address or server, the ISP in charge of that IP address should turn off that account for abuse of email. If the offending spam is from a spam happy company, the company who provides their Internet connection or IP address should shut them off. This would go up the line until finally the entity who provides all IP addresses could revoke the offenders accounts, leaving them (the spammers) out in the cold.

If a spamming company thought that they would risk losing their total existence on the Internet, they may co-operate with the suggestions that you have cited, e.g. Company name, address, etc.

The other solution is simply software. The software giants need to refine the software most people use as an email client. You should be able to completely filter your email. When the people who are paying to send out spam don't get a return on their investment, it will stop.

Another Point of View – Marvin Poulson,

It seems once again that you all leap to espouse a policy with little recognition of the dimensions of the problem. Endorsing Yucca Mountain or any location as a permanent repository for permanent disposal of America's nuclear waste is utterly premature without first addressing a permanent national policy on continued creation of more of this toxic waste. As proposed, Yucca Mountain won't have a large enough capacity to hold the waste currently waiting for permanent disposal. And by the time the proposed facility is ready to accept any nuclear waste for permanent disposal, nearly 50% more waste will have been produced. This raises the specter of needing ever more storage for a waste material that has no parallel in toxicity.

America needs a comprehensive nuclear waste policy that addresses the entire problem. Without including a plan to eliminate future creation of nuclear waste, any disposal policy is doomed from the start. A planned conversion from nuclear electrical generation to renewable electrical production must be part of the national policy lest we simply perpetuate the problem.

To date national nuclear policy has been short sighted and slow to offer comprehensive solutions. America can't afford to repeat the agonizing process of our present nuclear waste disposal policy. As things now stand, unless America stops producing more nuclear waste now, we will be doomed to repeat history. The tragedy of failing to learn the lesson and act on it now will be that we, our generation, will burden your children and grandchildren with this most hideous of garbage. This is not a legacy to be proud of.

Another Point of View – J. Tanner,

Your editorial regarding roundabouts on January 18, 2002, was wrong. Have YOU driven these confusing circles? Try driving that new roundabout just south of St. George. To go from one lane to another to make your street connection, while going in a circle with other vehicles, is asking for disaster. We will no longer get off at that exit to gas up when traveling south. Please check these ideas out personally before saying how great they are. These roundabouts are a bad idea for Utah. Thank you.

Another Point of View –Keith Raether,

KSL-TV's editorial of December 10 criticized Western Watershed Project's appeal of public-lands grazing in northern Utah.

The editorial failed to point out that Western Watersheds has spent years attempting to work with the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service before resorting to appeals and litigation.

Ranchers have no contractual right to use public lands. They receive 10-year grazing permits that are revocable privileges. Sadly, these privileges continue to destroy water quality, wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing.

Public-lands ranching also costs American taxpayers $500 million per year in subsidies.

Western Watersheds works to restore public lands by using all legal means to ensure that ranchers and public-lands managers comply with the law. The appeal of 176 grazing permits in Tooele, Rich and Box Elder Counties would have been unnecessary if ranchers and the BLM were living up to the law.

Litigation is not the only way Western Watersheds works to bring beneficial change to public lands. As a partner in the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign, Western Watersheds supports a program to pay ranchers with federal funds to voluntarily give up their grazing permits.

Because the buyout price is nearly three times market value for federal permits, it provides ranchers with an alternative to selling their private property.

This generous proposal will stem the contentiousness surrounding public-lands ranching, as the Grand Canyon Trust's buyouts in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument clearly demonstrates. With the buyout program, there are no losers. Ranchers are compensated, and our public lands return to health.

Another Point of View – Marvin Poulson,

I was disappointed by your presentation in your editorial "Environmental Extremes." Your characterization that all environmentalists are the same with regard to either of your examples is simply wrong and simplistic. Given your position in the TV market and the authoritative role as an opinion maker, I would hope you would be more precise and thorough in your presentation.

I particularly take exception with your characterization of those who oppose the Legacy Highway as inappropriately causing delays directly resulting in costing taxpayers $100,000 per day. You seem to have taken a press release from UDOT and embellished it. I have two major problems with your statements.

1. A halt to construction was planned for much of the winter, which if there is a relevant cost per day, in no way can be attributed to any legal delay.

2. If the state had correctly represented the project to the approving agencies, any legal delay would not have been possible. The legal process was designed into the process by Congress to assure complete understanding of impacts of projects such as the Legacy Highway. Such understanding should include ALL alternatives, including commuter rail or widening the existing I-15 to match what was done in Salt Lake County. These are only a few illustrations of information you fail to grasp in your editorial.

I realize you must be brief in your editorials, which should demand greater care in compiling your information and succinctly and accurately presenting facts rather than embellishing them with exaggeration.

Another Point of View – Bob Anderson,

I take exception to your comments regarding the "penalties" being borne by the taxpayers due to the halt of construction. I know that we "taxpayers" will have to pay; but, let's be sure and place the fault where it belongs. Certain "special interest groups" in fact halted the construction but please note that the powers that be pushed the project down our throats without having all of their i's dotted and t's crossed. Had our "dear gov" not forced his hand onto our "push over" public servants the project may have began in a legal manner without consequence. Don't blame the fighters again the project, which is in limbo, when in fact the problem is due to the short sightedness of the "special interests" which pushed the project upon us poor taxpayers.

Another Point of View – Don Hauer,

I agree that putting an end to permits allowing ranchers to graze their cattle on public lands while that issue is before the courts is too extreme. However, if construction is allowed to continue on the Legacy Highway, and a final court decision is made to ultimately halt construction, further environmental damage will have already occurred unnecessarily, along with the additional cost to reverse those effects.

You state this is a much needed highway. What is much needed is a mass transit system that extends from the Ogden area to the Provo area. A commuter train system would not only be more environmentally friendly, but would also leave future generations with a legacy of natural wetlands on the shores of our beautiful lake rather than another strip of concrete.

Critics of Fastrax said it would be used and now we realize how wrong they were. The rail service I suggest is not a new idea, but one whose implementation is much overdue.

Another Point of View – Clara Matthews,

In your editorial of November 14 about the special textbook allocation, you asked why the districts had not reported to the legislature as directed. Perhaps you should look at the rules that accompanied this money from the legislature.

I am an elementary school teacher (first grade), and was told that I had a little over $900 dollars to spend from the textbook allocation. The catch was that all of the money had to be spent for hard-covered books. Except for 3 books in our basal readers which were purchased new last year throughout our district, we don't use hard-covered books. What we do use and need in large quantities are big books and short, controlled vocabulary books to use with small groups when we are teaching reading. Many of these books are only used 2 or 3 weeks in a year. We were also told that there was a deadline in October for these purchases to be made.

After much discussion with our district, we were finally told that Kindergarten and First Grade could use soft-covered, short reading books, and that we could order them from the most economical source - the books clubs. We submitted our orders, and when the state auditors came to check up on the orders, they were all sent back to us as not being allowed because they weren't hard-covered.

At that point, I got mad, and contacted my legislators and the JEA because I didn't want to be forced to waste precious resources on books that cost way too much (if they could even be found) and didn't serve our needs anyway.

As we pressed this issue, we ended up with four conflicting rulings (this was reported by my principal) as to what we could do. Our district finally decided about two weeks ago to use Senator Mansell's opinion that we could buy either soft or hard covered textbooks as long as they were not consumable.

When you consider the problems that we have had with these rules, and the fact that many textbooks in the schools at all grades are now only available in soft cover (e.g. novels, plays) or in hardcover at greatly inflated prices, it is no wonder that we have had trouble meeting the legislature's deadlines.

This is an example of the foolishness of some of our leaders when they try to solve a problem without consulting the people who are delivering the services. No wonder Utah's education system is in trouble when the legislators make decisions without understanding the impact of those decisions on the delivery of services to the students.

Another Point of View – Steve O. Laing,

The KSL Editorial Board recently criticized Utah's school districts for being too slow to spend $24 million allocated for textbooks.

School districts know they must make responsible use of their much-needed revenues. Utah's children deserve quality, up-to-date textbooks. Utah's taxpayers deserve to have their money spent conscientiously. Utah's school districts won't haphazardly throw money at the textbook problem and consider it fixed.

The textbook allocation from the 2001 Legislature was made available to the Utah State Office of Education in March. The money was then re-allocated to individual districts based on size and need and made available in April.

Most district textbook committees meet in March to determine needs and consider the texts best able to meet those needs. As these committees met, they had no idea how much extra money – if any – would be available to them.

Since the money has become available to them, districts have moved both expeditiously and judiciously to meet their textbook needs. Utah students are seeing newer and better texts in their classrooms. The August report on textbook spending included only money already spent on texts. It did not include any funds encumbered for book orders not yet received. The Utah State Office of Education has put into place reporting requirements that ensure the funding will be spent on textbooks.

Utah school administrators should have the trust of the Utah Legislature. And legislators should know they can trust administrators to spend tax money prudently.

Another Point of View - Dr. Stephen F. Ronnenkamp,

A recent KSL editorial called local school districts on the carpet for not spending last Spring's new textbook money as quickly as some legislators thought we should.

I have a different view of what happened. Local school districts didn't receive the new funds until May 24. The law calls for reports on the use of textbook funds each year on August first. To me, this meant the report on the new funds would be due next August, 2002. I do not believe the Legislature really intended for districts to spend and account for all the new textbook money just two summer months after we received it.

Granite District's share of the funds in question is $3.5 million. In Granite District, textbook are selected and purchased by each school to meet local needs. Principals are expected to collaborate with staff members and with their local school community council on all major expenditures. It' impossible to do that in June and July when most schools are not in session. There is no way the district could have spent all the new textbook money by August first, unless the district office has unilaterally made every decision about which books to buy.

We don't do business that way, and I don't think the Legislature really wants us to.

School districts should be held accountable for every dollar of public funds they receive. And school districts obviously should build trust with legislators, and with the public, by fulfilling the obligations placed upon them by the Legislature.

But I would remind KSL and our legislators that trust is a two-way street. Local school districts were ambushed on this textbook matter by a few legislators who made an unreasonable interpretation of the law.

This whole incident was manufactured to serve somebody's political agenda by creating an opportunity to take potshots at the public schools. I think it's a shame. Our students and the public are not well served by such political tactics. Utah schools are doing a great job. They deserve public and legislative support.

Al Mansell Another Point of View,

KSL's editorial "Time for Independent Redistricting," on October 15, 2001, encouraged a look at Idaho and Arizona's independent redistricting commissions for "excellent examples" to avoid the "redistricting brouhaha." Anyone who takes a longer look than KSL's superficial glance will understand independent redistricting commissions are not the answer.

In fact, a closer examination demonstrates Utah's Legislature is more accountable and adheres to separation of powers better than an independent redistricting commission. The Utah Legislature should continue control of the redistricting process for the following reasons:

• Power Concentration - Decision-making power for redistricting can be concentrated down to a small five-member commission like Arizona's, where two members are from each party and one member is independent. The so-called "independent" fifth member becomes the deciding vote on many issues. This effectively gives one individual all the decision-making power granted by Utah's Constitution to the 104-member Legislature.

• Political Process - Some believe that politics can be taken out of redistricting by using a carefully selected commission. When the outcome is inherently political, is it really possible to take politics out of the process? Independent commissions are not free from criticism or lawsuits. Redistricting plans proposed by Idaho's six-member citizens commission have resulted in two lawsuits filed this year by residents in two separate counties.

• Accountability to the Voters - As publicly elected officeholders, legislators must answer to the electorate concerning their votes. A commission member usually does not hold public office and is not accountable to the public in the same way.

• Balance of Power - Commission members in some states are appointed by the Governor or the Executive Branch. This jeopardizes the appropriate balance of power between the three branches of government. Giving the chief executive appointment power shifts legislative decision-making power to the Executive Branch.

• Public Input - The 104 member Utah Legislature gives every Utahns the opportunity to comment to their local representative rather than to a commission with a few as three members (Oklahoma, Arkansas) or an average of five or six members.

• Knowledge of Geography and Demographics - The 104 member Utah Legislature has an incomparable knowledge of the geography and demographics of their districts. How can a commission of five or six people duplicate this knowledge?

• Independent Commissions - An independent redistricting commission may be politically independent, but are they geographically independent? Any individual appointed to an "independent commission" lives somewhere and has some inherent geographical interests. In the Utah Legislature, individual interests are balanced among 104 members, while an individual on a five or six-member commission may exert a disproportionate influence for their specific area.

• Budget, Equipment and Technology - Utah's Legislature has the staff, equipment and technology to accomplish the task. Commissions often require a new budget for the purchase of equipment, office space and staff. According to Census Bureau's Redistricting Data Office, Utah accomplished redistricting a decade ago for the smallest budget of all 50 states. For the 2000 process, Utah's Legislature appropriated $50,000 less than in 1990.

• Political Make-up of Electorate - The Legislature mirrors the political make-up and preference of the people who elected them. Is this not the correct proportion of influence and votes by which redistricting decisions should be made? A commission may have a fixed number of party representatives rather than reflecting the dynamic make-up of a changing Legislature.

• Constitutional Responsibility - Utah's Constitution, Article IX, Section 1 clearly places the redistricting responsibility with the Utah Legislature." . . . the Legislature shall divide the state into congressional, legislative, and other districts accordingly.

Although Utah's redistricting process is not perfect, it is public and responsive. During the first day of the special session, Democratic and Republican senators met together to work out constituent concerns and come to a consensus. On the first vote of the Senate Redistricting Plan, senators unanimously supported it with a 28-0 vote.

Senators had successfully resolved the Salt Lake City avenues dilemma, kept minority populations together in Salt Lake City, protected rural voices in central and southern Utah and worked out Utah County and Ogden-Weber area concerns. Following minor adjustments, review by the House of Representatives and some apparent partisan pressure, only three Democratic senators opposed the final Senate Redistricting Plan.

An independent redistricting commission would not have been as familiar with the Senate districts as the respective senators who knew their constituents and where they would support lines being drawn. Additionally, an independent commission would jeopardize the separation of power, placing too much power into the hands of too few.

Utahns deserve an open and accountable redistricting process. Utah's Legislature delivers it.

Jeanna Nixon Another Point of View,

In response to KSL's August 29 editorial opposing the provision of free air time to improve our country's election process, the Utah Alliance for Better Campaigns offers another viewpoint. The Utah Alliance for Better Campaigns is a coalition of community leaders, elected officials, and civic groups led by the Utah Progressive Network that was formed in 2000 to urge television stations to voluntarily increase substantive coverage of candidates prior to elections.

The National Commission on Federal Election Reform has recommended television stations provide free air time to both presidential candidates who have qualified for matching funds and to state and local election officials to provide necessary voter education. Their recommendation should be adopted because broadcasters have a public interest obligation to use the public's airwaves to provide voters the information they need to make informed decisions on election day.

Studies show the average voter gets most of his or her political information from television – but most of that information comes from paid political ads rather than newscasts. Broadcast time is the largest expense in state and federal level political campaigns, and while advertising has increased substantially, news coverage of those same campaigns declined sharply. When candidates are not covered by broadcasters' news and public affairs programs, they can only get their message to voters through television by raising large amounts of money and purchasing advertising.

Television stations, which are supposed to be trustees of the public's airwaves, make millions of dollars from these ads while our democracy gets sold to the highest bidder. Last year parties and issue groups spent $1 billion on television ads – more than the fast food or movie industries spent, and five times more in inflation-adjusted dollars than political advertisers themselves spent as recently as 1980. At the same time, the average local television station showed candidates speaking in their own words for just 45 seconds a night during evening news and programming in the closing month of the campaign.

The broadcast industry profits enormously from political campaigns, and does so using airwaves it has been granted, free of charge, in return for a commitment to serve the public interest. Thirty years ago, Congress decided that a part of this public interest obligation was to provide opportunities for candidates to communicate to voters at reduced cost during the pre-election period. Like so many other campaign finance laws, this one has developed loopholes over the years. Broadcasters are allowed to pre-empt ads sold to candidates at the reduced cost if other advertisers are willing to pay full price for the spots. Stations have increasingly pre-empted candidates advertisements, requiring them to pay the full rate in order to have their commercials shown at specific times.

A study by the Alliance for Better Campaigns showed that, on average, candidates paid 65% above the reduced rates for ads during the 2000 election. A study by Brigham young University researchers of 17 media markets that had hotly contested political races last fall found that television stations tripled their ad rates from the end of July through the end of October to take advantage of election-generated demand.

The best way to break this cycle would be to require broadcasters to provide air time for candidates talking about issues in stump speeches, issue forums, interviews or mini-debates. Former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, and former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite have called on the nation's broadcasters to open the airwaves to five minutes a night of candidate-centered discourse in the 30 nights before all elections. The proposal was developed by a 1998 presidential advisory panel which was co-chaired by CBS President Leslie Moonves and political scientist Norman Ornstein. The panel was formed to address the obligations of television broadcasters in light of their receipt of increased digital spectrum space for free, a gift valued at up to $70 billion.

These five minute segments, over which television stations would retain editorial control, could be embedded into news or news magazine programs, or presented in slots carved out elsewhere in the evening television lineup. The goal is to create a forum for candidate discourse that routinely reaches television's broad audience night after night in the closing weeks of a campaign. No doubt, as a result of broadcasters efforts, citizens would get a more substantive alternative to what KSL describes as the "superfluous and tawdry" ads that currently dominate politics on television. Candidates, including those without bulging war chests, would also spend less time fundraising and get a cleaner shot at putting their ideas before the public.

In the numerous polls over the last thirty years, a large majority of Americans support giving free air time to political candidates. In addition, the Supreme Court has afforded more limited First Amendment protection to broadcasters than to other media because the electromagnetic spectrum is a scarce public resource that cannot accommodate all who wish to utilize it; and therefore the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring its most efficient and effective use in the public interest. Rather than limiting free speech rights, the proposal for free air time encourages speech. The Supreme Court has long recognized the government's significant interest in maintaining the "opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people" as "a fundamental principle of our constitution" (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269 (1964).

The cost to broadcasters of providing free media time is estimated to be less than one percent of gross annual ad revenues. Broadcasters, having been given exclusive use of the public's airwaves, should be true to their agreement to serve the public interest and provide meaningful, substantive coverage of candidates as part of their news and public affairs programming during the thirty days before an election. Is this really too much to ask for a stronger democracy?

Scott D. Northard Another Point of View,

How much does Private Fuel Storage(PFS) spend lobbying lawmakers on issues relevant to its proposed Skull Valley Storage facility? It's not $37 million, as reported in your editorial. It's not even close.

Your editorial was apparently based on a very cursory reading of a recent report by Public Citizen. However, if you read the Public Citizen report carefully, you will see that lobbying disclosure documents filed by PFS report an approximate annual expenditure of $300,000. That is less than one percent of the amount claimed in your editorial. It is even less than the $1 million the Utah legislature gave Governor Leavitt to fight the PFS project during this fiscal year.

The $37 million reported by Public Citizen, and echoed by your editorial, includes amounts spent by member utilities on a variety of issues unrelated to PFS, or even to nuclear power, since member utilities also produce electricity from coal, oil or natural gas. They are concerned about a myriad of public policy issues such as deregulation, power line locations, electricity transmission and distribution. Their lobbying even benefits Utah citizens when they advocate policies that protect the reliability and adequacy of the electric power supply.

The bulk of the $37 million, as noted by Public Citizen, is lobbying expenditures by associations to which PFS member utilities belong. However, these associations do not lobby on behalf of PFS. Only one - the Nuclear Energy Institute - has been active in their support of PFS, and that has been a very minor piece of their agenda and their budget.

Todd Starley Another Point of View,

Your editorial "UN-do Damage in La Verkin" was very interesting, and alarming. I agree that we should defend our Constitutional rights, including the 1st Amendment, yet the statement that La Verkin is making about the UN is more important than many realize. Some modifications in the resolution may be necessary, yet the message to the UN should remain the same.

The UN is a danger to U.S. sovereignty, and they need to be watched closely. The UN supports many programs that appear to be good, but are actually very socialistic, and socialistic government is nearly a communistic government. There are many things on the UN website that proves this. Global disarmament, support of the ICC, UN/UNESCO protected property in the United States, and many other concerns, need to be addressed by the public with our own government.

Currently the UN/UNESCO protects many areas in the US, including Yellowstone Park, and many places in Utah. They have plans to control or "protect" many more areas in Utah, which include all of Utah's National Forests and Monuments, and this is the same throughout the country. If you check out the UNESCO or UN websites, you will see that they have plans to control as much land as possible, and they actually boast that they currently control about 9% of the global land mass.

There is something wrong with the UN. I support the "message" that La Verkin is sending to the UN, and more communities should do the same. The United States of America is a free Republic, founded by inspired men, and we are guaranteed, not given, our rights, liberties, and freedom under the constitution of the United States. We are not subject to any foreign power, nor should we, and with some good homework on the UN, anyone can see that the UN may be a threat to the American way of life. The UN and the ICC are a threat to the family unit, and this is that fundamental organization of this country, and is essential to our national survival.

Leonard George Another Point of View,

How dare you refer to the principles of freedom enshrined in the Constitution of the United States in the same breath as you speak of the UN? The UN is trying to become a one-world dictatorship and eliminate those few freedoms we have left. The United Nations is not bound by the Constitution of the United States, and the only time the liberals in this country refer to it is when they wish to misinterpret it to fit their own agenda. Bill Clinton has his agenda, which appears to have been to hand the whole country over to the UN so we could be ruled by their Marxist ideologies.

You said, "KSL hopes they get an earful, especially from reasonable voice that can enlighten city officials about the myopic nature of their ill-conceived July 4 action." Who in the world do you at KSL think you are? You may get an ear full for your myopic view of a town's constitutional right are trying to take over the world. Anyone who wishes to welcome the UN cannot be considered as a person who has a reasonable voice, and could not possibly "enlighten" city officials since they themselves are in darkness from having their head buried in the sand. It was the action of visionaries, not ill-conceived by a group of myopic people, that created the ordinance against the UN.

I am VERY pleased that there is a city council smart enough to do what they did at La Verkin! I hope to see thousands of cities and towns follow suit.

Cal Potter Another Point of View,

The State of Utah finally has some citizens who are courageous enough to tell the truth about the United Nations and point out some of the many shortcomings of this framework for a one world. You not only disagree with their point of view, which IS your Constitutional right, but you go way beyond what is necessary to make your point by ridiculing them for the pro-American stand they have taken. The principals of freedom enshrined in the U.S. Constitution do not require or even encourage Americans to support an international organization whose goal is to subvert American sovereignty in favor of a one world government.

If the only reason you can see for the citizens of the town of La Verkin to come out strongly against the UN is for publicity for them and their town, then you have spent altogether too much time traveling in the small circles of the liberal media. You need to broaden your horizons and your study of the real purpose and goals of those pushing the U.S. toward these "foreign entanglements" that George Washington warned us about over 200 years ago. The citizens of United States and of Utah may well be better off by not looking for every possible opportunity to sacrifice our sovereignty at the alter of the U.N. or other similar international organization. To equate maintaining our freedom and sovereignty with filling potholes is arrogance to the worst degree. KSL management and your viewers deserve and expect more.

It should be said of the town of La Verkin, that finally we have a city whose officials understand that we all have a responsibility to fight the influence of organizations like the U.N. An organization, which if its goals are realized, would mean loss of freedom and eventual slavery for all Americans.

Jess Dalton Another Point of View,

In a recent editorial, you addressed the issue of legislation against using cell phones while driving. You addressed mostly the topic of cell phones interrupting the physical part of driving. I agree that there are many things just as distracting as cell phones while driving, however I think you failed to consider the most important factor - the mental distraction. It takes all of your concentration in today's traffic to drive safely and defensively. I have been talking to people on their cell phones when they have exclaimed, "Oh my gosh, I just ran a red light!" or "I just missed my exit!" One cannot concentrate effectively on driving while discussing an important business deal, arguing with the kids or spouse, or trying to work through a problem with the office. It simply can't be done. Even the hands-free options cannot take over your concentration for you. This is where the danger lies. We cannot legislate to make people pay 100% attention to driving, but we can make it illegal to use cell phones while doing so, thus eliminating at least one more obstacle.

David Maxwell Another Point of View,

Thank you for your editorial on the use of cellular phones in vehicles. Many people name off statistics on how dangerous they are and the urgent need to ban their use while driving. I believe you presented a much more accurate view. I appreciate your willingness to present ALL the facts regarding this rather than just one or two studies which focused solely on cell phones and not on other distractions.

Ted A. Taylor Another Point of View,

I listened with interest to your editorial concerning the use of the ignition interlock for drunk drivers. Over the years, there are many of KSL's editorials I have agreed with, but I have to admit this is not one of them. I believe, that instead of faulting the judges for not using these devices, perhaps one needs to look at the legislatures, and push for laws that punish these offenders instead of coddling them. Perhaps, if upon failing the field sobriety test they lost their license for let's say 90 days for the first offense, and even a full year for the second, maybe they would think again before drinking and driving.

I believe it's time to stop treating these individuals as just someone who made a bad decision, and started treating them as someone who willfully decided to drive when they knew in fact they had been drinking.