Monday's Letters to the Editor

<p class="bold allcaps">Avoiding choices</p> <p>EDITOR: I am troubled that some people are seeing the lack of an increase in Social Security payments as a problem (“No increase in Social Security for next year,” Friday). The system is working just as it was designed to work. Few complained when the Consumer Price Index dictated an increase of more than 5 percent.</p><p>The proposal to pay $250 to recipients of government-funded benefits is evidence of a larger problem — our collective unwillingness to make and stay with the hard decisions needed to manage our country.</p><p>By the way, my wife and I collect Social Security, and it represents a significant portion of our annual income.</p><p>DICK VEGSUND</p><p>Santa Rosa</p><h3>A roaring backlash?</h3> <p>EDITOR: As a motorcyclist I’ve been following the debate about loud pipes, and I’d like to point out a few things.</p><p>All loud motorcycles are loud because their owners want them that way. They are all sold new with quiet exhaust systems, and this is true even of Harley-Davidsons and has been so for decades.</p><p>Many cars on the road have climate-control and sound insulation (to block out loud motorcycles, among other things) and powerful audio systems, all of which diminish the possible benefit of any audible warning. There are hearing-impaired drivers who cannot respond to any audible warning.</p><p>When dozens of loud motorcycles ride in formation down the road, the effect on the neighborhood is an in-your-face, gut-wrenching wall of sound. When I see the looks on the faces of my voting, representative-writing, non-riding neighbors when this happens, I see an onslaught of regulations or even outright bans.</p><p>There is no constitutional right to ride, and the courts are crystal clear on the state’s right to limit or ban vehicle modification. A more apt mantra might be, “Loud pipes get bikes banned.”</p><p>MARK JANES</p><p>Guerneville</p><h3>Local history</h3> <p>EDITOR: How heartwarming to read Gaye LeBaron’s story regarding the Cloverdale History Museum (“Cloverdale: Sonoma County’s old, and new, frontier,” Oct. 11). As native San Franciscans, we moved to Cloverdale in the early 1950s and never looked back. So many memories came to the fore upon reading what LeBaron wrote about. My dear friend, Marie Hill, has told us so many stories of Cloverdale history over the years; her grandfather homesteaded the sheep ranch on Highway 128 where she lives today, and with a wagon and his team of horses, he transported tanbark many years into Cloverdale.</p><p>We built our home on a lot in Cloverdale containing a very huge and ancient oak tree and were advised that it was known to be one of the Spanish land markers on part of Rancho Musalacon, and it was interesting to read LeBaron’s writing about that area of Cloverdale history.</p><p>HELEN SHANNON</p><p>Santa Rosa</p><h3>Second-hand smoke</h3> <p>EDITOR: I greatly appreciated the Friday article “Study: Smoking bans reduce heart attacks.” We must go one step more in our county and our state and ban smoking in public housing, condominium and apartment complexes, where residents follow no-smoking rules in the common areas but are still permitted to smoke in their apartments and on their balconies. If you are a non-smoker, your exposure to second-hand smoke is huge.</p><p>Many of these housing complexes have large age 62-plus populations, for whom a healthful environment needs to be maintained and regulated by law. My health is jeopardized on a daily basis. Please help. </p><p>NINA TEPEDINO</p><p>Santa Rosa</p><h3>Nobel prize news</h3> <p>EDITOR: Here’s how much I love my daily newspaper: Some days I don’t even listen to the TV news because I assume I’ll be informed of important current events in your publication. This is exactly what happened on Oct. 9, the day Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.</p><p>I didn’t hear about it until I sat down to my newspaper the following morning. And then I still didn’t hear about it. Yes, there was an article about the win (“Will he live up to it?”), but what I missed was the announcement of the win. It was kind of like the day after an awards show and not finding out who took the trophy.</p><p>You know how some people want to take away the glory involved in winning because of some sour grapes and the mistaken belief that they can somehow negate the award by interrupting with their loud voices? Let’s be careful not to pull a Kanye West on this Nobel thing. This is how it should have gone: President awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Congratulations. Nuff said.</p><p>Why can’t we be proud of having elected a man who is so well respected on the world stage? The Press Democrat missed the opportunity to demonstrate due respect, and your readers were not very well informed of an important event.</p><p>DENISE GORDON</p><p>Rohnert Park</p><h3>Campaign rules</h3> <p>EDITOR: Morris Torres (“Changing the system,” Letters, Oct. 12) offers some sensible proposals for conducting more ethical, less expensive election campaigns. However, the public financing of candidates presents problems: Government spending is already skyrocketing. And, there’s the question of what criteria would qualify candidates for public election funds.</p><p>Rather than the tired public funding proposal, let’s reconsider another choice. One of the reasons election costs have ballooned is that, typically, candidates for office can be funded by individuals, corporations and lobbies anywhere in the nation. To reverse this, we could restrict campaign contributions to natural persons (i.e., exclude all organizations) who reside within the given election demarcation. So, for example, candidates for mayor could only collect contributions from people living in their city; state Assembly candidates from their district; gubernatorial candidates from their state, etc.</p><p>And while continuing to keep records of contribution amounts and contributors, we could also set contribution limits, applying the principle of subsidiarity (“matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority”) by setting those limits at the municipal, county, state and federal level as appropriate.</p><p>This reform could reduce exterior influences on elected officials, help return power to voters and decrease campaign costs.</p><p>KIRSTIN MERRIHEW</p><p>Santa Rosa</p><h3>Let them serve first</h3> <p>EDITOR: Why is it that many politicians, the latest being Sen. Dianne Feinstein, push for more troops and a continuation of a war with no winnable solution? Does Feinstein have family members fighting, or did her rich husband serve in the military? No.</p><p>How about Mitt Romney? Neither he nor his father or grandfather have put on a uniform. He has four sons who have never served one day in the military. This family has missed every military engagement this country has been in.</p><p>How about Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly? These are just a few of the people who want your sons and daughters to put on the uniform and defend their country. They are richer and smarter than the rest of us and can’t be put in harm’s way.</p><p>My great-grandfather, grandfather, father and I put on the uniform.</p><p>Before they have the right to tell others to go, how about making them spend six months in the Middle East? I’m sure even Feinstein and the rest can drive a truck and give a 21-year-old soldier a better chance of living a few more years. </p><p>FRED MARTIN</p><p>Sonoma</p>