Few states would benefit more from nationwide health insurance reform that includes optional public insurance than New Mexico. Sen. Tom Udall merits high praise for signing on to a letter by Sen. Michael Bennet calling for the Senate to pass a "public option" using a procedure that requires only a simple majority vote. The public option has no chance of passing any other way; it would be filibustered by the Republican minority and never come to an up-or-down vote.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman has stated many times, including at length on his Web site, the benefits that New Mexicans would get from health insurance reform in general and the public option in particular. Yet he hasn't yet signed Sen. Bennet's letter. New Mexicans should demand that he do so, according to his stated position on the subject, or explain to us why he will not.


Revive reconciliation

In opening remarks for the Republican Party at the Health Care Summit, Sen. Lamar Alexander stated hypocritically that reconciliation should not be used to pass health care reform. Alexander voted four times for reconciliation under Republican administrations; the costliest when they rammed through Bush's huge tax cuts for the richest 1 percent of Americans, effectively adding almost $2 trillion to our national debt.

Republicans suggest that their use of reconciliation 16 out of 22 times it has been used is fine, but that it should not be used to add 30 million people to health care, keep people with existing health issues from being dropped and minimally regulate insurance companies. Program costs would be paid for over a 10-year period plus $150 billion in savings according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Democrats are for the people; Republicans are for themselves, the insurance companies that donate hundreds of millions to them, the corporations and the richest Americans, who donate heavily to the party.


Nuclear-power peeves

Your Feb. 22 editorial, "Nuclear-plant finance is only a small step," incorrectly assumes that the recession is the reason that private financiers aren't granting loans for nuclear power plants. The Congressional Budget Office found that nuclear investments are very risky, stating that "the risk of default on such a loan guarantee is well above 50 percent" because of cost overruns, design problems and credit downgrades.

No loan company wants to take that kind of financial risk. Also, no insurance company wants to cover nuclear plants because the cost in the event of an accident would be astronomical. Nuclear energy is touted as clean when the consumer uses it, but every aspect of producing that energy is not clean and contributes to global warming. Instead of wasting taxpayer money on expensive, risky and dangerous projects, we need to invest in true clean and renewable energy sources, which are some of the fastest growing industries today.


No such reg

In your Feb. 23 editorial, "Wi-Fi: Council kicks can again," you write, "Wi-Fi is regulated by the federal government." Indeed, the Telecom Act of 1996 says that health and environmental concerns cannot interfere with the placement of an antenna that serves wireless devices. It says that cities cannot prohibit service except for aesthetic reasons or if it affects property values. This makes health and environmental concerns illegal so that corporations can do whatever they want. This is not regulation.

You write, "We're all products of nature." I don't consider human beings products. Call us electro-magnetic creatures, sentient beings, children of God, expressions of Nature. Because we have no defense against microwave radiation needed to power wireless devices, we would do well to question why studies about Wi-Fi and cell phone use are usually funded by the industry, then rarely released to the public. We would do well to consider why we've subscribed to corporations that do not carry liability equal to the risk of harm their products hold. We would do well to consider other city's experiences with the distributed antenna system proposed for Santa Fe.


Fees eat wages

Paid parking is understandable in such a tight knit area as the Railyard. However, the city of Santa Fe must review the contradiction created by a Living Wage Ordinance and paid employee parking in both the Railyard and downtown. The Living Wage Ordinance disintegrates in the face of $5 a day parking for Railyard employees. These employees must pay for the parking garage, feed the meters throughout their shift, or park blocks away, risking parking tickets in the surrounding neighborhoods.

Parking in the Railyard district must be consistent to be effective and productive for the city. Urban renewal in the Railyard is a positive step for Santa Fe. However, the city must take into account the impact on employees, surrounding neighborhoods, and local patrons in addition to paying down the debt and making a profit.


Roadway trash

I am a resident of the Villa Caballeros neighborhood south of Rodeo Road between Yucca and Camino Carlos Rey. Whenever I walk along Rodeo Road, I cannot help but notice a disgusting assortment of garbage obviously thrown from passing vehicles — everything from empty beer cans and bottles, paper cups from fast-food products to empty whisky bottles (Airline serving size) and, on occasion, dog waste that pet owners have not cleaned up. The city of Santa Fe recently completed landscaping the center island on the roadway. However, thoughtless citizens show no concern for the appearance of the roadway, let alone the cost of keeping it clean.

Perhaps our school teachers of the early grades could instill a value of good citizenship in our children so that they would learn at an early age to better care for their city and for their neighbors.

Oh yes, could the city spare a few gallons of paint to cover up the graffiti on the two railroad cars on the siding off Rodeo Road, a blight seen by all who pass by daily including tourists and visitors on the train to Lamy?


Free ride for alcohol

Last year, more than a billion dollars in alcohol sales occurred in New Mexico. The alcohol excise tax collected was less than $150 million; the tax rate has been the same since 1993.

Yet our Legislature would not even bring an increase in the alcohol tax to the floor for debate, much less insist that the consumers of alcohol pay more in this time of great budget deficit.

Why should they pay more tax on alcohol consumption? A recent study performed by our state shows that the cost impact to the citizens of New Mexico, of alcohol abuse in its many forms, exceeds a billion dollars. Why is raising the alcohol tax a sacred subject while cuts to social services and a food tax are not. Perhaps our senators and our representatives could tell us why this is the case?