Letters to the editor March 27

I want to thank Paul Coats for his article on the Property tax relief bill, CI-121 and for his many years of work as a great PA. I am skeptical about CI-121 and have many questions about it.

I agree that some of us need property tax relief. People on fixed incomes (below a certain income) and lower income individuals and families, even middle income families with the pace of property values out pacing income.

CI-121 would help these groups and would relieve all Montanas of increasing property tax. My fear is that because of the strict limit on tax increases and the one-size-fits-all nature of the legislation it will in the end hurt the people who really need it most and just be another windfall for the rich.

CI-121 looks to me like it will in quick order underfund cities and counties who depend on property tax revenues due to increasing costs of goods, salaries and inflation. This will hurt schools, police, fire and rescue, pensions, and the list goes on. If the state finds short fall in its budget the first programs to get the chopping block will be social services. Which aid those most in need. Will pot revenue really replace property tax income?

When the State and cities fall short how will they make up the income? Yes sales tax. A sales tax is a regressive tax. It hurts those with less income than those with more income, so again we are hurting those we intend to help. With sales tax our total tax burden will not go down, it will go up even with property tax relief.

So why not a property tax initiative that proposes a more focused relief for those who need it. Is C-121 just going to make income inequality even worse then it already is in our state? Paul if you read this I would like to hear your response.

— Steve Martinez, Kalispell

Permanent Standard Time

As many of us are slowly adjusting to the recent change to Daylight Savings Time, and with a bill currently moving through Congress to make DST permanent, it's important we understand how it impacts health.

I think we all can agree that the twice yearly time change needs to go. The question is, should we adopt DST or Standard Time?

Permanent Standard Time is our natural state and is defined by sun and longitude. It supports our circadian rhythms, gives us more morning sunlight, and encourages us to have longer, higher quality sleep. Scientists, doctors, and researchers throughout the US and the world support permanent Standard Time for mental and physical health, safety, and the economy.

In contrast, DST disrupts our circadian rhythms, delays the sunrise, and promotes poor quality sleep. It makes us more prone to heart disease, cancer, obesity, mood disorders, viral infections, stroke, accidents, and suicide. Moreover, it lowers cognition and reaction time, while heightening stress. Studies have shown it severely impacts productivity and earning potential.

Many organizations oppose DST and urge permanent Standard Time, including: The National Sleep Foundation, American Academy of Sleep Medicine, and the American College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.

It is my hope that our Montana legislators will adopt permanent Standard Time for our state to encourage the health and well-being of Montanans and the economy.

— Carolanne Wright, Whitefish

Fossil fuels

I have a question for the climate change proselytizers: If climate change is a global phenomenon, what good does it do to stop producing fossil fuels in the USA and then import the same amount from our enemies and bad actors in Iran and Venezuela? Atmospheric CO2 can't tell where the oil that produces it comes from.

I know the philosophy of liberals is: if you make it so painful to buy gas, the 99% of people who drive combustion engine vehicles will switch to electrics, but in the face of a tyrant invading another country and murdering civilians, don't you think it would be worth making an exception to your article of faith and push our own fossil fuel and cleaner LNG and oil production to satisfy our own as well as Europe's short-term need to cut off Russian oil and strain their economy?

Depending on the source, wind and solar produce somewhere between 4 and 12% of total energy consumed in the U.S. (I won't comment on the amount of fossil fuels needed to produce and maintain these time limited devices, nor the need for backup by fossil fuels until we have batteries to store their production for low wind or cloudy periods), so fossil fuels will not be eliminated in the next decade or two as liberals promise to accomplish to save the earth.

Why not give the brave Ukrainians a hand, punish Russia and certainly not help sustain dictators in Iran and Venezuela? Complete the Keystone pipeline (cleaner for the environment than ground transportation) and facilitate not punish drilling in the US, at least for now?

Perhaps we can save a few thousand Ukrainian innocents? We can worry about saving the planet tomorrow. Afterall, we have survived the last 40 years despite predictions of our demise.

— David Myerowitz, Columbia Falls