State budget climbs -- doubling every decade

To place the current budget proposal in perspective, consider the following previous budgets, as indicated in Wisconsin's Blue Books:

• 1963 -- First year the budget exceeded $1 billion.

• 1970 -- $2.5 billion.

• 1980 -- $7.4 billion.

• 1990 -- $14.1 billion.

• 1994 -- $17.1 billion.

• 2000 -- $37.4 billion.

• 2010 -- proposed $62 billion.

Do any programs ever get cut or eliminated? The budget seems to double every 10 years, while the number of taxpayers (except for government workers) grows very slowly.

The obvious end is bankruptcy.

-- Stephen J. Kapitan, Madison

Four ways to reduce Wisconsin's budget

I suggest these changes to alleviate current and future state budgetary woes:

• Eliminate the position of secretary of state. Even the Blue Book hints at the uselessness of the office by citing the secretary performed a broad range of duties that are now delegated to specialized departments of the executive branch. The current budget for the office is over $1.5 million with 8.5 employees.

• The state gasoline tax at the pump is 32.9 cents, and the federal tax is 18 cents per gallon. Couldn't the 0.9 cent be rounded up to a full cent, with the state getting the additional income? We would hardly notice it.

• Revisit past proposals such as the conversion of the interstate system. Solicit bids to invest in rebuilding and modernizing it and recover the investment from tolls charged to user.

• If we want to be innovative, we could eliminate the Senate and have just one legislative body as Nebraska has. Think about how much bickering and time that could be eliminated.

-- Bernard Mixtacki, Stoughton

Furloughs not the way to save state money

Last Sunday's State Journal editorial suggested "Six ways to save the state budget." The editorial called on the state to be "honest with its road budget," suggesting that only those who use the roads should pay for them.

Certainly, you would not argue that only families with children in schools should pay for them. There is an obvious higher societal value with such institutions.

Unlike the schools, however, excessive profits of the oil companies could be tapped to balance the budget. Of course, how this money is captured and used will be a paramount concern to us taxpayers.

I was also surprised that you did not attack the ill-conceived idea of the governor's furlough of state employees. What seems to be a simple concept has proven to be a quagmire. Many intelligent folks have challenged whether there will be any savings.

Given the loss of federal funds and federal fines, lost state taxes on lost wages, the lack of impact from non-state funded positions, the implications of the Fair Labor Standards Act on exempt employees, possible legal defense costs and costs of overtime, as well as lack of accountability of how much will be saved, your opinion missed an important criticism.

-- Philip E. Klein, Madison

Shoreland regulation updates under way

The State Journal's criticism in Tuesday's editorial of Dane County's work to revise its shoreland development rules was disappointing.

Dane County's waterways are vulnerable. Runoff pollution muddies waters and leads to algae blooms, weeds and other problems. Surveys show protecting and cleaning waterways is a top priority for residents.

While our Lakes and Watershed Commission has improved agricultural nutrient and erosion controls and strengthened urban storm water and wastewater management programs, one critical gap remains -- updating our shoreland rules.

Dane County staff and the commission are working on a solution to go beyond a one-size-fits-all approach. The Waterbody Classification project, a multi-year, multi-agency effort to create policies that will protect water resources while providing shoreline property owners flexibility, evaluates the best current thinking on the issue.

Earlier this year, the commission and staff convened an economic focus group that included assessors, real estate appraisers and agents, land trusts, researchers in real estate and rural and land economics, among others.

Given the questions raised and the information gathered through staff consultation with researchers and engineers, the plan is being revised to focus efforts where they are likely to have the most benefit and to minimize impacts to existing development.

This process will continue as we near finalization of the plan before the end of the year.

-- Melissa Malott, chairwoman, Lakes and Watershed Commission; and Patrick Miles, Dane County Board supervisor, commission member and chairman of Urban Runoff Subcommittee

In honor of Dr. Farley, bust single-payer myths

My memories of Dr. Linda Farley, who died June 9, move me to write about one of her many passions -- health care. The arguments against her preferred single-payer system and President Barack Obama's government option rest on myths.

Myth one: a government-run system will be a disaster. Government bureaucrats will choose your doctor.

Congressmen saying this have the government-run federal employee plan, and I have yet to learn that any refused the coverage or had their mother drop Medicare. I have had excellent coverage under both systems with choice of doctors.

Myth two: you have choice now.

In most cases your employer selects the plan, and the plan selects your choice of doctors and treatments.

Myth three: It would be socialized medicine, like in Europe.

Europeans enjoy better health care outcomes including longer lives. Besides, nobody is taking about a socialized system -- proposals provide choice among a variety of health plans, including private ones.

Myth four: It would lead to rationing.

We ration health care now by whether or not you are employed and which plan your employer selects. We ration by denying care to those losing jobs. Insurance companies profit by denying coverage to those who most need it, restricting coverage and payments.

-- Peggy Wireman, Monona

Profit motive interferes with health care reform

The whole idea of insurance is to achieve economies of scale. Actuarial abnormalities have less influence on total claims when the group is larger. The idea is to spread the risk.

This is impossible when there are so many so-called insurance companies and countless other entities such as HMOs which cherry pick by taking the healthiest clients and avoiding those with greatest risk, such as those with existing conditions.

There will be no savings unless the number of insuring entities is reduced and common rules, measures and standards are applied. A true national system would have a single payer that would insure both low- and high-risk patients. A compromise would be to have a public health insurance option which would, by competition, decrease the number of insuring entities.

All other developed countries recognize that the profit motive in health insurance is destructive and run their plans through not-for-profit insurers or the government. Some countries spend far less per patient compared to the U.S. and have better health outcomes.

If the public option is included, the government would be one of the choices, which would keep the private insurers honest.

That is why the special interests will fight against a public option. The only chance for reform is to decrease the number of for-profit insurers that take huge profits that could be used to decrease costs for everyone.

-- Bob Menamin, Verona

Supervisor defends 'wasted' meeting time

The State Journal's Friday editorial, "Enough with the feel-good fluff," displayed a meanness of spirit. I was one of the "offenders" at a recent Thursday meeting.

In return for 14 years of service by my constituent, Dale Bruhn, I took 10 minutes of the county's and public's time. Call me a time waster, but I think Bruhn's service on the Long Term Care Committee deserved recognition.

People say, "Why doesn't anyone report the
good
news?" That's what I was doing. And I was honoring an individual who served on a county committee, so I'd argue that it was county business.

Supervisor John Hendrick's handwritten "resolution" was presented somewhat whimsically. At this past meeting a number of testimonials came up all at once. As chairman, Hendrick would have moved things along had he been seriously concerned.

Yet somehow we got the county's business done in under two hours, including testimonials.

Having been the author and presenter of just one testimonial resolution in my 10 years on the County Board, I'll pass on the opportunity to apologize for wasting time. Current County Board members work so well together that our debates rarely take us to midnight.

In return for our collegial way of doing business, perhaps we can be afforded the luxury of thanking those who give so much to our community.

-- Al Matano, Dane County Board, District 11

Strengthen and pass the clean energy bill

Passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act is the most important thing Congress must do this year. But it needs to be strengthened.

The Sierra Club hopes the Senate will improve this bill in a number of ways, such as removing language that permits offshore drilling. This destructive practice has no place in the proposal. Neither do provisions that give free permits to polluters or use taxpayer dollars to buy dirty tar sands or liquid coal fuels.

Ultimately, a strong clean energy bill must also have more aggressive targets for energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy, since these are the cheapest and most effective ways to address climate change.

Some argue that taking on climate change is too expensive. Actually, ignoring climate change or taking minimal action will cost us much more, such as lost species, degrading habitats, declining human health and devastating impacts on critical industries like agriculture, forestry and fishing.

If the United States makes a real commitment to solving climate change before the international climate talks in Copenhagen this December, we have the potential to inspire other nations to do the same.

On the other hand, the absence of strong action will send a signal to the rest of the world that they can continue to procrastinate, giving us little hope of avoiding a mess for future generations.

-- Shahla Werner, Madison, director, Sierra Club-John Muir Chapter

Open rest rooms at Tenney Park Locks

While fishing recently at the Tenney Park Locks, I noticed a young father with two pre-teen children attempting to use the bathroom.

The doors were locked.

About an hour later, 10 canoes carrying 20 adults and teens from a Walworth County canoe club paddled up to the locks with the intention of using the bathrooms before continuing through the locks on down to Lake Monona.

The locks and the bathrooms were closed.

I understand the small savings from operating the locks only four days a week, but I cannot understand closing the bathrooms as well in a high usage public park.

I urge County Parks Director Darren Marsh and the Parks Commission to correct this situation by keeping the bathrooms open during daylight hours seven days a week. Security could continue to be offered by the County Sheriff's Department as well as the Madison Police Department.

Having formerly served on the Dane County Parks Commission for 14 years, I cannot remember a situation where we turned our backs on the basic needs of county park users in such a thoughtless manner.

-- S. Michael Shivers, Madison