We must encourage these reforms in our Legislature

Regarding Tom Barnes' piece "House Rebels Try to Break Iron Grip of Leadership" (July 10): We should all remember the need to reform Pennsylvania government and contact our officials to be sure these reforms are implemented, not just discussed.

Something must be done before November. If your House member is listed in Mr. Barnes' story, please contact him or her and say that you are watching for results, not just proposals. If your House member is absent from the list, vote for someone else.

I would like to suggest a real lobbying disclosure package to the House, whose business is tainted by some of the weakest lobbying regulations in the country. True reform must include: barring any House member or his or her immediate family from ever working for a lobbying firm; capping lobbying contributions; prohibiting financing of gifts, trips and meals; publicly posting minutes of meetings with lobbyists on the state Web site; strengthening disclosure laws; and providing for a bipartisan, multibranch ethics board with some teeth.

Whatever your political persuasion, we must realize that unless these reforms are undertaken, Pennsylvania government will not be able to effectively work for the people.

STEVE KARAS
Forest Hills

---

Out of touch

A quote by state Rep. Jeff Pyle in the July 8 story "State's Senators Give Up Car Lease" once again demonstrates that Pennsylvania not only has the most expensive state Legislature in the country, but the most out of touch one as well.

The state Senate recently voted to require senators and staff to contribute 1 percent of their gross salary toward their health-care premiums (a whopping $60 per month for a legislator making $71,000 annually). Rep. Pyle observed that "more and more private companies are doing that with their employees."

Rep. Pyle and other Pennsylvania legislators may be surprised to discover that the majority of employees in the private sector have been making significant contributions to their own health-care premiums for quite some time, generally well over $60 per month. What is news is that employers are cutting benefits, increasing co-payments and dropping coverage altogether.

Let's not be fooled by this token gesture to rein in the Legislature's costs and perks. It's going to be up to the voters of Pennsylvania to bring on any real change come November.

ELAINE WOLFE
Point Breeze

---

Why the SUVs?

From a quick glance at the list of the vehicle choices of southwestern Pennsylvania's House members ("Senators Give Up Car Lease," July 8), it's obvious that thoughts of conservation did not guide their purchases.

Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency, I estimate that the average combined fuel economy for the 22 House members' vehicles ("Area Lawmakers and Their Leases," July 8) is an unspectacular 18 miles per gallon. The almost-unanimous choice of the SUV directly accounts for this poor rating.

Although rallying against the SUV is a Sisyphean task, I believe our representatives should be chided for their failure to set a better example. What, besides self-importance and a false sense of security, necessitates the purchase of these oversized vehicles whose one major advantage over cars -- the ability to go off-road -- will probably never be used by any of these (sub-)urban owners?

JAKE KROHN
Shadyside

---

Not so glowing

As re-election time draws near, it is certainly understandable why Pennsylvania Secretary of Revenue Greg Fajt was eager to tout his boss, Gov. Ed Rendell, as a business tax-cutter in his July 10 letter ("These Tax Cuts Will Further Improve Our Business Climate").

The problem for the secretary, however, is that the facts don't square with his glowing portrayal of the governor's record.

The secretary began by claiming that the Rendell administration is responsible for more than $1 billion in tax cuts, but he neglected to mention that the bulk of those cuts were due to the already scheduled phaseout of the state's capital stock and franchise tax, which was signed into law by Gov. Tom Ridge in 2000 (and which Gov. Rendell retroactively raised in 2003).

Secretary Fajt also failed to point out that the positive features of Pennsylvania's business tax climate identified by the Tax Foundation's recent report largely predate Gov. Rendell's administration. In fact, a number of Gov. Rendell's actions in office have actually diluted some of the advantages that Pennsylvania enjoys with regard to its competitors, such as his 2003 signature of a 10 percent increase in the state's personal income tax -- the tax paid by most Pennsylvania small businesses.

Finally, Secretary Fajt's rhetoric can't obscure the fact that Pennsylvania's employment growth rate under Gov. Rendell stands at barely half the nationwide rate during the same time period.

GRANT GULIBON
Research Fellow
Allegheny Institute for Public Policy
Mt. Lebanon

---

The WMD facts

Regarding the July 1 letter "WMDs in Iraq": The seemingly desperate Sen. Rick Santorum in a press conference held June 21 to address weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, described the discovery as "an incredibly significant finding."

In fact, our intelligence agencies have stated that Saddam Hussein destroyed his stockpiles in the 1990s. The weapons of mass destruction Mr. Santorum was referring to were 500 munitions containing "degraded" mustard or savin gas, all manufactured before the 1991 Gulf war.

The Bush administration had known these facts for some time and had concluded these were not the WMDs it had used as an excuse for invading Iraq 3 1/2 years ago.

The voters of Pennsylvania have an excellent opportunity to retire the ineffective senator this November.

Don't worry about how Mr. Santorum will earn a living. He will continue living permanently in Virginia and probably establish a consulting firm that will draw big fees from the lobbying firms he has so scrupulously courted all these years.

AL ANDREWS
Mt. Lebanon

---

A legal alternative

I agree with Tim Brown's views on the "Pittsburgh left" ("A Foolish Courtesy," July 10 letters). The issue according to Ian Miller ("A Roadway Courtesy," July 4 letters) is that it allows the first person in line to continue on his or her way and allows the cars behind to continue without delay.

Who is to say that the third person in line is not turning left also, or the fourth or fifth? Should everyone yield to that person? The person going straight through the intersection has the right of way, it's as simple as that.

I guess the fear for Pittsburghers is that they will have to wait until the light is green and there are no cars coming through the intersection until they can turn left and be on their way. Theoretically, they could be at that intersection forever if oncoming traffic doesn't stop. Not so if a less aggressive, perfectly legal and painfully underused tactic is implemented.

When the light turns green, slowly pull forward to the middle of the intersection, patiently wait until the light turns yellow and oncoming traffic stops, and make the left. You are through the intersection before the intersecting light turns green.

Let's limit the quirky and endearing aspects of this great city to our dialect and love of the Steelers. Honk!

ROSS CHAMBERS
Aspinwall

---

When a majority of scientists agree, it's clear that we must take action

Jack Kelly ("Talk About Hot Air," July 2 column) makes several citations to show that scientists in climatology are not unanimously in praise of Al Gore's global warming movie.

However, a Google search of "global warming consensus" shows that, Mr. Kelly notwithstanding, Al Gore's citations mirror the views of the overwhelming majority of scholars in the field who have contributed articles in peer-reviewed scientific publications.

The scientific sources cited by Mr. Kelly represent a small minority of the contributing research scientists in the field. That does not necessarily make them wrong; scientific disputes are not settled by counting of opinions. But Mr. Kelly's failure to indicate that the views he cites are outside the scientific mainstream bespeak a lack of candor that doesn't do much for his journalistic credibility.

In the words of Naomi Oreskes, a science historian writing in "Science," "The scientific consensus, might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for not acting on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it."

MILTON MANES
Shadyside