In defense of Proposition 2

I am writing to dispute your opposition to Proposition 2.

You acknowledge "persuasive arguments that current practices in the egg industry are inhumane." Yet you conclude that our efforts would do little to help the condition of animals because Proposition 2 will drive egg producers away. This is a faulty conclusion based on an incomplete perspective.

Californians already consume a large percentage of non-California eggs. Why? Because our demand exceeds our supply. However, projected demand for humanely sourced food is growing rapidly within our state – and across our nation. We will do better in California as our farmers, by 2015, phase in these modest improvements. By adapting, farmers can capture these expanding cage-free markets, and consumers will enjoy an increased egg supply and better pricing.

Nigel Walker of Eatwell Farms in Dixon says, "As a chicken farmer, I cannot condone the cruel way egg-laying hens are kept. … The time has come to give chickens space to move and stretch their wings." We should place ethics above pennies and pay about 12 cents more per dozen for a healthier, greener and shame-free product. Please join me and more than 700 other veterinarians who endorse this measure. "Yes" on Proposition 2.

– Barbara Hodges, Dixon

McClintock's 'snake oil shale'

I am tired of Tom McClintock saying that we have a magical supply of 800 billion barrels of oil locked away in Rocky Mountain shale formations just waiting to be developed if only Congress would move on it.

The truth is that Shell Oil has just developed an experimental new technology called "in situ" extraction that, according to the company's own research, will take 20 years to come online. That's a long time for us to wait for gas prices to come down, Tom. Not all of us get tax-free per diem payments from the state of California.

Please go sell your snake oil shale somewhere else.

– Bud Lee, Granite Bay

Legislators are getting too cozy

Without question, our California legislators have truly forgotten the purpose of why they are in Sacramento. "We the people" is not a phrase germane to our politicos. It appears that party politics, personal power and a pay schedule with costly perks are more important.

I can understand why the legislators do not desire a realignment of their party-power districts, for change may cause a situation that could cause their jobs to be lost.

Already the recently passed budget has failed. Over 80-plus days and now we go to another crisis?

How about this proposal to help balance the budget, without creative accounting practices:

• Remove flat rate per-diem from the compensation plan, instead reimbursing legislators' actual costs. We in business do this for our employees.

• Remove company cars from the plan, allowing the legislator a flat monthly cost of $400 with a mileage allowance for actual mileage based on current gas conditions. Other companies do this.

• No health plan or retirement not consistent with plans used in private companies.

It is time to more closely follow our leadership, voting out those who do not represent the citizens of this great state.

– Richard Andrase, Rio Vista

Legislators could use technical help

Re "New cuts, tax hikes likely on table," Oct. 8: It is no surprise that the state budget is too high. Sadly, some of our well-meaning legislators have little understanding how much their bills will cost and accomplish. California has no independent group to evaluate dispassionately the implications and full costs of important technical bills. And this costs us billions.

I am talking from personal experience: I am an environmental scientist and previously was the head of the solar office at the California Energy Commission. I studied Senate Bill 1, the Solar Initiative, from all aspects and tried to educate legislators about important negative aspects of the bill. I practically lived at the Capitol for several months, met with legislators and their staffs, and tried to bring some economic understanding to a bill being pushed without careful analysis.