Replace the IRS with the ‘Fair Tax’

To the editor,
The Fair Tax, HR25, completely replaces our present income tax and gives citizens immediate control of their taxes. It is a tax on consumption, which means you pay taxes only when you choose to consume something new or use a service. And the first $11,500 per person per year (the currently defined poverty level) is not taxed. Therefore, no one pays taxes on necessities, a big break for low income families. A couple spending $50,000 a year on new goods and services would be taxed on only $27,000, a tax bill of only $6,210, which is 12.4 percent of their expenditures based on the proposed 23 percent consumption tax. The proposed law has been thoroughly researched and written by several highly trained economists who believe that the currently proposed rate will be revenue neutral with the taxes that are eliminated and will accomplish all of the benefits that are anticipated. Taxes that are eliminated include: income tax, payroll tax (Social Security and Medicare withholdings), gift tax, estate tax, corporation tax, and taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains. The bill will soon be discussed by Congress. Please let your voice be heard if you want to eliminate income taxes and the IRS.
– Pat Burkett, Bend, Ore., via email

Shop for your health services

To the Editor,
Recently, unfortunately I injured myself skiing and needed an MRI.  Durango cash price: $2,000.  Durango insurance price:  no one knows. My insurance (Rocky Mountain Health Plans) will not answer that question, saying they don’t release their “negotiated rates.”

Farmington, N.M., cash price: $785. Denver cash price: $585.

Moral of the story? If you need tests or scans done, do them out of town. The hospitals own all the MRIs here in town. Don’t be held captive and get ripped off! Shop around for your health care in “the best health care system in the world.” What a joke.
– Julie Meadows, Durango

Ease natural gas exports

To the editor,
It’s too early to break out the Champagne, but you might want to start icing down the bottle. U.S. carbon emissions from power plants dropped 3.8 percent in 2012, to their lowest level since 1994, according to the federal government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA). The United States hasn’t won the fight to reduce carbon emissions yet, but it’s headed in the right direction.

That recent reduction is not an anomaly: energy-related carbon emissions have declined in five of the last seven years, for a 12 percent reduction between 2005-12.

The U.S. decline appears to be part of a long-term trend due primarily to power plants increasingly switching from coal to cheap and cleaner-burning natural gas – which emits about half the CO2 that coal does – and to a shift from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, which needs less energy to produce its products.

In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency keeps pushing regulations that make it increasingly difficult and costly to use coal.

And that trend may accelerate. While power plants are the primary source of carbon emissions, vehicles also play a role. The widespread availability of cheaper and cleaner natural gas also explains why there is a growing effort to shift long-haul trucks to natural gas from diesel.

Engine manufacturer Cummins has begun building and shipping big-rig engines that run on natural gas. And UPS intends to expand its fleet of 18-wheelers that run on liquefied natural gas (LNG) by nearly 800 percent by the end of 2014, according to the New York Times.

Transportation consultant Karl Ziebarth thinks the trucking industry will have largely shifted to natural gas within five to eight years. He notes another reason for the shift is being driven by EPA regulations that require new pollution-control technology that’s driving up the price of diesel engines. Challenges remain, including the need for a refueling infrastructure, but he says the growing demand will likely induce truck stops to make the investment.

Cars are also following suit, though the numbers are small. The Washington Post cites Dave Hurst of Pike Research estimating that out of 14.5 million passenger cars and trucks sold in the U.S. in 2012, a little more than 20,000 ran on natural gas. But even more than long-haul trucks, people will need a convenient refueling infrastructure before natural gas-powered cars catch on.

And even trains may be headed down the same track. BNSF Railway announced earlier this year that it is working on a new engine that will run on LNG – ironically, to transport what it hopes will be a million barrels of oil a day, according to CNBC.

But even as the U.S. makes progress in reducing carbon emissions, global CO2 emissions between 2005-11 increased by 15 percent. The best way to make sure the rest of the world continues reducing carbon emissions is to remove a decades-old restriction on exporting natural gas to other countries without approval from the federal government.

Not everyone is happy about the U.S. CO2 reduction success story, however. Some environmentalists see the increased availability and adoption of natural gas as a failure because it relaxes the economic pressure on government to mandate individuals and companies switch to renewable energy such as wind and solar.

Nothing creates more public support for renewable energy sources than high fossil fuel prices. Of course, nothing is worse for the economy than high fossil fuel prices.

The day may come when we can get most or all of the energy we need from renewable sources, but that day is a long way off even under the best of circumstances.

The public policy goal should be to meet our energy needs while doing as little damage as possible to the environment and the economy. Natural gas is helping us do that. With the right policies, we could start celebrating the CO2 reduction success story soon.
– Merrill Matthews, Institute for Policy Innovation, Dallas

Ice cream guy can throw pies

To the Editor:
A former owner of an ice cream company is waging a campaign questioning the necessity of the Pentagon’s large scale weapons systems, including the F-35 bomber which has been plagued with problems.

We have a need for the development and implementation of strategic weapons systems to counter the systems of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Our large-scale weapons systems have kept potential adversaries at bay since World War II and will continue to perform this vital function. The previously mentioned countries have extensive strategic weapons systems and continue to improve them and develop new, more lethal weapons.

I agree with the ice cream guy that we have to assign resources to address the threat of terrorism. In particular, Islamic terrorism is a major threat to world peace as evidenced by the attacks in this country, Europe, Russia and the Middle East.

If the former ice cream guy can guarantee the strategic weapons systems of potential adversaries will melt away, maybe we can convert some of our military manufacturing facilities to the production of ice cream whoopie pies he can use as ammunition against our enemies.
– Donald A. Moskowitz, Londonderry, N.H.