Letters to the editor: Giddings, Simpson proposal on dams, higher education, carbon fee
Rep. Giddings
This letter is addressed to Rep. Priscilla Giddings, R-White Bird:
Dear Rep. Giddings,
I cannot believe what I read today by the Associated Press, reporting on your conduct today while a young woman was terrified, testifying about ... one of your colleagues. You are reported to have “laughed out loud” and “scoffed” as she testified about a life-altering, horrific experience. Shame on you! It is abhorrent what happened to that poor young woman. It is absolutely unforgivable how you responded in the ethics hearing.
I am calling on you to resign immediately. People of your character have no place in our legislature.
Terri Pickens, Boise
Simpson proposal
The Idaho Fish and Game Commission and Department are required by Idaho law to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage the fish and wildlife of Idaho. The Commission is to investigate and find facts regarding the status of the state’s wildlife populations in order to give effect to the policy of the state. ( Idaho Code 36-103, 104 )
There is no evidence that this scientific information was provided to the legislature prior to the recent passage of Senate Joint Memorial 103, opposing Representative Simpson’s plan to save Idaho’s salmon.
There is scant evidence that Idaho Fish and Game has provided up-to-date scientific evidence to the Idaho public regarding the dismal plight of our fish.
In fact, there appears to be a gag order on providing such critical information.
Without availability of scientific data, how can the governor, legislature or public make informed decisions concerning our fish? 2021 is a fifth consecutive year of terrible returns of fish to Idaho waters.
There will be no fishing for spring chinook salmon on the Clearwater and much of the Snake River.
We are losing our spring chinook; our steelhead are close behind.
Idaho Fish and Game cannot remain silent.
Keith Carlson, Lewiston
Higher education
Idaho colleges and universities serve our youth by teaching them professional preparedness and good business sense. With a college degree, your son or daughter is that much likelier to be a self-supporting, productive citizen who can in turn give back to their community and state. Our legislators clearly feel the same way, since many of them hold degrees from our great Idaho universities and colleges! Thanks to their experiences there, these legislators are now thriving businesspeople, with spouses they met at Idaho universities, children who now attend them, and parents or grandparents who are also proud alumni.
Yet, by reworking Senate Bill 1179 to cut Idaho’s shoestring higher-ed budget further still, our legislature imperils the accreditation of each and every college and university in this state, and, along with it, the professional, personal, and family opportunities for millions of young Idahoans.
I encourage all Idahoans to consider what makes better business sense: Crippling Idaho’s universities, thereby depriving your son or daughter of the opportunities our legislators enjoyed as young adults? Or protecting the right of every Idaho child to earn a worthwhile college degree in-state, one that prepares them to do good business right here at home?
Zachary Turpin, Moscow
Carbon fee and dividend
The Wall Street Journal published economists’ statement on carbon dividends. The 3,589 U.S. economists, four former chairs of the Federal Reserve, 28 Nobel Laureate economists and 15 former chairs of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers support a market approach providing the missing market price signal and replacing various inefficient regulations. The “Energy Innovation & Carbon Dividend Act,” HR 763, emulates their plan and was reintroduced this year. It’s revenue-neutral, avoiding enlarging the federal government, and military and agriculture fuels (.4% each) are exempt. It will provide the regulatory certainty companies need for investing in clean-energy alternatives without extra government spending. It’ll protect U.S. competitiveness by providing a border carbon adjustment system. It’s politically feasible because all the revenue is returned monthly directly to U.S. citizens using equal lump-sum rebates. Since most American families have less carbon intensive footprints, most will get back more than they pay in carbon fees. A March 22 Wall Street Journal article reported the American Petroleum Institute has endorsed putting a price on carbon. The Business Roundtable with 27% of the total U.S. stock market capitalization supports “placing a price on carbon.” Help encourage Congress. Visit cclusa.org.
Ed Wardwell, Boise