The New Mexican's June 10 editorial ("Will $4-a-gallon gas ignite fresh thinking?") opens with the sarcastic observation, "Four-dollar-a-gallon gas, the latest manifestation of Republican prosperity, struck Santa Fe during the past weekend ..."

So this is a problem created by Republicans? Let's see, congressional representatives and senators from which party consistently vote against drilling for the vast reserves of oil in Alaska? Against drilling for the vast reserves of oil located off shore? Against building more refineries? Against building nuclear-power plants that would take some of the strain off the demand for oil and natural gas?

Until Democrats in Congress start doing something other than blocking any solutions to this country's energy crisis, I respectfully suggest that the editorial staff of The New Mexican turn its gaze a bit toward the left in looking for a scapegoat upon whom to vent their spleen.
Brigette Russell
Santa Fe

Insurance adjuster

Four dollars per gallon gasoline prohibits me from driving. Mandatory auto insurance, while good in principle — it has diminished the need for "uninsured motorist" protection — becomes an unfair burden on drivers who can't afford to drive anymore.

Auto-insurance companies are making more money, if they are charging the same rates while assuming less risk because people are driving less. People driving significantly less (50 percent or more) should be able to qualify for a rate adjustment, or rebate according to the odometer reading in all cars. It is time for auto-insurance companies to help with this driving problem.
Robert Ford
Cerrillos

Flawed concept

The administration should try to do more to control the ill effects of the bad economy, but does not.

In fact, it has allowed many businesses to write their own "Christmas lists," and has done nothing to discourage this inflationary nightmare from playing out in full force.

Now that we are into this illegal occupation for five years, the country is starting to reel from the economic aftershocks, and it's not only gas that is soaring in price, but anything that is shipped, flown or trucked. Moreover, natural gas for home heating and yes, even firewood, is reflecting high prices and more than doubling in price.

Mom and Dad cannot decide whether they should spend their Social Security checks on food, gas, or prescription drugs this month and are afraid to even think of next month. It is enough to give one pause to consider the concept of supply and demand: Capitalism in all its glory is playing out all over the country.

"Please don't gouge me anymore" is the new mantra for many of the people.
Randy Nason
Santa Fe

Making cents of it

How much is a gallon of crude oil? On June 6, a barrel of crude closed at $138.54. Each barrel contains 42 gallons. $138.54 divided by 42 equals $3.30 per gallon.

On the same day, I bought a gallon of gasoline for $3.90. The federal tax per gallon was 18.5 cents. The state tax was 18 cents, for total of 36.5 cents.

Gas at $3.90 per gallon, less the 36.5 cents per gallon in taxes, less the cost of the crude oil per gallon ($3.30) leaves 23.5 cents.

That 23.5 cents per gallon pays for: transport from oil field to refinery; the refining process; transport to gasoline distributor; distributor operation; transport to gasoline station; operation of the gasoline station; accumulated income taxes, etc. And don't forget that gasoline is not 100 percent crude oil.
Bruce Garnand
Santa Fe

Real price of oil

On June 4, you published Joe A. Luján's letter, "Same old song." I hope it was intended as sarcasm. This conflict that we are fighting is about control of oil! I am against it!

I support our soldiers 100 percent — not the fools in Washington. To think is patriotic; to follow blindly is foolish. If Mr. Luján thinks that I am a coward, then he may come to my home so that I may give him give him my Combat Infantryman's Badge and my Bronze Star. Then he can go over there and fight.
Jeff Kramer
Santa Fe

Question rhetoric

So George W. goes right on existing in his dream/denial. And his "only regret" is that the "rhetoric" he used to promote an unnecessary war was not better chosen! Not the loss of American lives, Iraqi civilian deaths, the billions wasted, the destruction of American credibility, the use of torture, the threat to the Constitution!

But the fact is, his rhetoric of lies, half-truths and propaganda worked all too well. It took us to this disastrous war and the aftermath we still don't know the cost of. And he will go back to Crawford and his rich retirement, unpunished and unrepentant and still asleep.

The scary thing is that he still has six months to do even more damage with his new rhetoric designed to get us into a war with Iran.
Edward Parone
Santa Fe

Buyer beware

Who among us would be foolish enough to buy a package at the store with no identifying labels, only a price tag? That would be foolish. Yet our government is asking us to buy a war without seeing what we are purchasing.

During the Vietnam War, we saw on television in our living rooms nightly what the war was about. We saw soldiers being shot and killed. We saw blood. We saw suffering. We saw death.

All those things have been a daily part of the war in Iraq, but Washington only wants us to see the occasional sterile Medal of Honor ceremony with our president feigning tears. We aren't allowed to see the wounded, the dead, the coffins, or the blood. How long are we going to buy the plain-wrapped box? We're paying, but don't get to see what for.
Charles Maynard
Santa Fe

Lesser of evils

Recent articles in The New Mexican, including a screed by several librarians on June 8, have decried possible Wi-Fi installations in Santa Fe public buildings, claiming adverse health effects from this low-power radiation. For the record, this issue has been examined world-wide by such health organizations as the Health Protection Agency (UK) and the World Health Organization, as well as OSHA in the USA. The consensus is that current scientific research shows "no consistent evidence that exposure to radiofrequency signals from Wi-Fi adversely affects the health of the general population." (WHO, Fact Sheet 304) The United Kingdom agency adds that Wi-Fi frequencies are the same as FM radio and mobile phones, and concludes that the health risks from Wi-Fi are likely lower than from phones. Wi-Fi thus appears to be a non-issue for public health, unless everyone wants to first turn off their cell phones and radios.
Robert Heffner
Santa Fe