Letters to the editor Aug. 14

A nation of laws?

A few days ago, I had a discussion with a longtime friend. We discussed the situation our country faces with regard to immigration and the individuals who have entered our country illegally. 

I indicated that regardless of whether or not I agreed with the ultimate goal of removing all those who did not enter legally, we needed to follow the law when addressing their status. Her response was, “But that would take 500 years.” 

I do agree it would take a long time, but I strongly feel that following our laws is more important than just quickly deporting those persons. If we as citizens allow our government to ignore the law, then nothing we hold dear is safe from being taken away. For example, here in Montana we highly value the protections the Second Amendment gives us with our guns, but if the administration can ignore some laws, then they can also take our guns away, regardless of what the Constitution says.

Congress could address all the issues raised here. First, our congressional leaders can appropriately work out a plan to address the immigration concerns. Maybe it is enforcing the existing laws and providing adequate resources to support those laws, or maybe it is finding a path to citizenship to the migrants who are already here and who have demonstrated they are responsible. (Both political parties have had opportunities to do this, but have chosen not to address immigration.)

Second, our congressional leaders could accept their constitutional assigned responsibilities by restraining the executive branch’s extra-legal over-reach. Obviously, Montanans don’t influence all congressional leaders, but we can do something about our own representatives and senators. 

Ask yourself this question when you vote: Are we citizens who follow laws or simply do whatever we want?

— Christopher Hagar, Bigfork

Out of luck

Property taxes, the scourge of everyday living for people of all ages. Young people who want to raise a family and have a home must sacrifice their standard of living to pay them, older people who are retired and on a fixed income also sacrifice their standard of living to pay them. 

Sure there are special programs, that most people don’t qualify for, to help them, so both groups do without while the governor has $2 billion in surplus. They don’t buy that new bike, coat or special trip for the family. They skip the movie or night out to pay taxes. They do repair the car, buy groceries, buy school supplies and the necessary items of life whose cost has all gone up because, you guessed it,  increased commercial property tax. 

Taxes for older people are often more than their mortgage ever was. For young people it is the surprise cost added to their mortgage payment in January. 

In 2008, when Montana had it first big jump in taxes and 35,000 protest were filed they had meetings all over the state, where legislators swore to fix the problem. Of course they were the problem, so in the last 17 years it has become worse than it was. 

If you are not wealthy with a lot of disposable income, where taxes do not matter you might as well face it, you are out of luck and it will be the ugly cost increase every year going forward.

— Dennis McDowell, Bigfork

Local control gets the ax

The current effort to hollow out the Forest Service is a thinly veiled precursor to privatization of our national forests.  Imagine more subdivisions where you now recreate or some corporation or wealthy individual closing off these land and waters.

Greatly diminished budgets and staffing, including the current proposal to eliminate Missoula’s regional office will significantly diminish the ability to manage the Flathead National Forest. Technical and policy expertise shared between forests is best served where geographically closest to the resources they work with, such as Missoula. Removal of these services to Salt Lake City makes no sense. Expertise in regional offices results from years of on-the-ground experiences, and without such a ladder of experience, the agency will instead recruit inexperienced bureaucrats.

National forests have already undergone rapid downsizing and seriously diminished budgets. The current downsized organization is but a shadow of what is needed to serve both the important natural resources as well as provide services to the American public. The American public deserves and expects this public land legacy to be properly managed, and this reorganization proposal contrary to these needs. 

Our politicians tout that local control best serves Montanans but apparently remain silent on this proposal. 

You may comment on the reorganization proposal by Aug. 24 at reorganization@usda.gov.

— Greg Munther, Missoula