Letters: Increase Utah’s minimum wage by $3 per hour

The Utah 2018 General Session is currently underway. With it are a variety of various legislations waiting to be considered. As Utahns, watching from the sideline, we’re once again reminded of the power each elected representative has at their disposal to see that the issues needing to be hammered out during these next two months are considered.

One such proposal that’s popped up again is something our Utah sorely needs to address: raising the state’s minimum wage. Unfortunately it has become contentious when it shouldn’t be. Living in Utah all my life I’ve come to be proud of the impeccable nature in which Utah has had the ability to be near self-sustaining in terms of economic wealth. Yet, at the same time, coming from an economically suppressed area of Utah has given me a gift: perspective.

The Navajo Nation extends into the southeastern portion of the state of Utah. With it, poverty rates are highest amongst the Nation. As it stands, 42.9 percent of Navajo tribal members living on the reservation have incomes of less than $8,350 per year. In the state of Utah, Native Americans have a poverty rate of 28.9 percent. I’ve seen first-hand the efforts of my Navajo peers to bring up their own standards of living. Work is indeed scarce out in rural Utah.

Many proud Navajo workers along the Utah Navajo strip find work off the reservation, finding work in the tourism sector, energy development, retail, etc. Many jobs require travel off the reservation. Most jobs aren’t exactly high-paying jobs. In fact, many working in the tourism sector need to work two jobs just to stay afloat.

Rather than go on, I simply wanted to stress the point that many Native American families are in dire straits. One thing these families still do though, whether living on reservations or not here in Utah, is pay sales tax. Not exactly a force to contend with, yet. However, a simple adjustment to the minimum wage here in Utah could immensely assist the state in terms of tax collections.

Increasing the minimum wage would provide the state of Utah’s poverty-stricken families a way to increase their spending power over the counter or at the pump.

It can’t be ignored this 2018 General Session that there’s also a proposal by our state’s lawmakers to increase the gas tax, which directly funds our Utah Department of Transportation. Southern San Juan County has seen road improvements to the county and state roadways, particularly SR-162, running between Montezuma Creek and Aneth, Utah.

Our part of the state sorely needed improvements and I’d like to thank the Utah Department of Transportation and the Transportation Commission for working closely with the county commissioners in a three-year effort. If our lawmakers can see the need to adjust the gas tax rates in order to offset the ever-rising inflation rate of the 21st Century, why not the living wage to go right along with it? Nineteen states remain at the federal minimum wage of $7.25. For Utah, simply raising the wage rate by just 300 cents wouldn’t break the financial back of our state’s business community. It would enhance our workforce’s ability to remain competitive nationally by incentivizing the poorest to gain employment.

Why did I just mention that? Well let’s take a look at the median hourly wage for all occupations in Utah. Fifteen dollars and 80 cents is the average, according to the Utah Department of Workforce Services. I believe it would benefit the state of Utah rather than hinder it, to see that an increase to the minimum wage is seriously considered.

Therefore I support a Utah lawmaker’s attempt to increase the state minimum wage with House Bill 117 “Hourly Wage Increase Amendments” legislation.

Ryan Benally
Montezuma Creek, Utah

Uranium worker’s daughter stands by claim

In response to “Uranium victim billed for lift chair, daughter says,” (Navajo Times, Jan. 25, 2018), I would like to direct this response to the Frontier Medical marketing manager, Kansas Whitear. The Times quoted him, “I can assure we have never had a patient pay for anything that the Department of Labor has approved.”

Mr. Whitear rejected my assertion that was published in the Jan. 11, 2018, Times’ Opinion section. I stand by my original assertion, which holds that a Frontier employee stated that my father would have to pay the remaining balance on a lift chair that cost $1,300 because the DOL Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act approved a purchase of approximately $500 only. My father’s claims examiner at the DOL EEOICPA stated to me that my father should not pay any amount on any durable medical supplies they approve with the applicable medical “providers.”

My father’s status is that he is an injured former uranium worker and is entitled by federal law to medical benefits under the DOL EEOICPA. Times reporter Pauly Denetclaw (Jan. 25, 2018) wrote a great article explaining the DOL EEOICPA’s policies as it pertains to this. I will not regurgitate my whole assertion published in the Jan. 11, 2018, Times issue.

To make clarification, the first lift chair Frontier Medical ordered and the DOL Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act approved was too small. Frontier received a check from the DOL EEOICPA in the approximate amount of $500 and they purchased the most economical (dare I say a cheap, crappy) lift chair. Since it was too small, it was not a proper fit. That was fixed. Mr. Whitear also commented “…patients sometimes want high-priced medical supplies … DOL is not going to pay for the Cadillac version.”

I searched locally for a lift chair and there aren’t too many here in town. Fortunately, one was available in town. As for the prices, the cost at the lower end is most likely going to be that of a cheap quality product. And the lift chair at $1,300 is not a Cadillac version. When I spoke with the DOL claims examiner a few times, not once did she caution that the $1,300 (“Cadillac”) lift chair is asking for too much. In our conversations, there was no issue with the DOL approving the purchase of $1,300 for the lift chair. One (not my father’s) DOL claims examiner revealed that they push for the medical providers to order the most economical priced durable medical supplies for the injured, former uranium workers.

Personally, I find issue with this. I comprehend the need to keep costs down. But these former uranium workers, back then, were not made aware of the detrimental effects that uranium could and would cause. They deserve the best quality, whether it be in their health care or in the durable medical supplies.

After all, the United States became this planet’s military superpower with the aid of uranium workers. I realize that my assertion is of a serious nature, possibly placing Frontier Medical in a bad light. It was and is not my intention to cause harm to the company or to its employees. Maybe the Frontier employee, Darlene, was new – maybe. That is why I concluded in my Jan. 11, 2018 letter that Frontier Medical quickly resolved the issues by retrieving the non-fitting, too small lift chair and working with me in obtaining a properly fitting lift chair. In addition, Frontier Medical reimbursed my father for his out-of-pocket purchase on the two canes.

One last mention: During my search, I found Spinlife.com, which has great aids such as mobility scooters, power wheelchairs, lift chairs, patient lifts, beds and more.

Tammie Blackwater
Farmington, N.M.

Leaders need to support continuation of NGS

Why are our leaders so quiet on the Navajo Generating Station?

It is troubling that the leaders of the Navajo Nation are in danger of losing over 800 good-paying jobs and probably many more at the tribal level once the royalties stop arriving. I’ve heard our leaders say that our unemployment rate is near 50 percent and that our economy needs help, that we need jobs so that our youth can have a better chance to raise their families.

The Navajo Nation has an industry that provides an excellent wage with good benefits for its employees and their families, in addition to the royalty and tax revenue. However, that industry is now under threat of being closed prematurely. Why are our leaders not being more vocal about keeping these jobs when we hear time and time again that we need jobs for our people? Why are they being quiet when they have an opportunity to let their big voices be heard? We elected them to keep those jobs and create new ones.

When we ask our leaders to support an issue, they always say to get a supporting resolution. These employees got that done and now no leaders want to show their support. They want to have the attorneys tell them that it’s OK to show their support. Additionally, neither the Navajo Times nor the Gallup Independent chose to cover the passage of this supporting resolution when it was debated for over three hours at the Chambers.

What will happen when the Navajo Nation loses over $400 million in direct and indirect benefits and over 800 jobs? What will happen when the Navajo Nation loses 24 percent of its budget? What programs or chapters will be cut? The plans from President Begaye presented at this point do not come close to replacing the potential lost revenue or jobs. Nor are there any plans to assist those that will be impacted by the closure of Kayenta Mine and Navajo Generating Station. We apparently have to look to the local counties to take care of that.

An example of a local community looking towards the future is the Kayenta Township. They went to Council with legislation that would provide opportunities for the community to prepare for the lost revenue but Council chose not to pass that legislation. What, then, my leaders, is your plan?

Having a good-paying job that is close to home is a source of pride for families because it gives them security. This is what we all work for: food, home and the necessities of life.

Given what has been said, I pose a couple questions to my leaders: Do we have to lose those jobs? Do we have to lose that revenue? No, we don’t. We need your voice, my leaders. We need your leadership. Show your support for jobs and the Navajo working family by supporting the continuation of NGS and Kayenta Mine. There are plenty of miners and their families throughout the state of Arizona that will stand with you.

Jarvis Williams
Kayenta, Ariz.

Increase Council to 40; decrease employees

The tribal Council’s proposal to increase the Council size to 40 members is raising some eyebrows.

First, I would like to wish a happy new year to the citizens of the Navajo Nation.

Millions and millions of dollars have been spent on government reform by Navajo Nation without any positive results. As far I can remember the research on tribal government reform has been in the works for about four decades and continues as of this date. It’s no secret hearing over and over about constituents complaining about not seeing their delegates anymore or the distance they have to travel to find them.

The bottom line is the constituents deserve to be heard from the hogan level. This may the reason for their proposal. The only tribal leader that took government reform seriously to heart is probably the late Leonard Haskie’s administration. It took them less than two years to create the three-branch government, which was intended to be more responsive and accountable. I give praise to the Haskie administration for their effort.

The Joe Shirley administration gave tribal government reform a shot and initiated a referendum to reduce the Council size. The reduction is not government reform and all that has created is more corruption than the previously 88 members. Today I am hearing different views of the tribal Council’s proposal to increase the Council size and it does not appear to be favorable to some people. Of course everyone has their own views and opinions but they failed to offer suitable suggestions of a good government.

In viewing the entire tribal government structure it’s top heavy and raises a troublesome concern. It’s like a pyramid is upside down. Currently, there are way too many employees, more than 1,000 at the Window Rock level, which should be addressed in the reform. In light of the above, I hereby support increasing the Council size to 40 members and creating some field representatives at the district level like congressional representatives do.

Included should be reducing the tribal employees at the Window Rock level.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to heard on these issues and related concerns.

Vern Charleston
Farmington, N.M.

There may be new hope for child with cancer

It might be felt by some that it is none of my business or it might be that immunotherapists have already come to the rescue of the 6-year-old Navajo girl who was reported in the Jan. 11 issue of the Navajo Times as undergoing another treatment for her second bout (a relapse) with cancer, but I consider myself health-orientated and my compassion is impetus for this letter. I want to help the child and possibly others suffering from this dreadful disease, which took the life of one of my sisters a number of years ago. I recall how she decided to leave instead of continuing to cope with the painful treatment at the time.

I may be late with this letter because medical discoveries are happening rapidly all the time. The article that first caught my attention was in the Navajo Times dated Jan. 11, 2018, headlined “I’m gonna get bald,” and the article that is impetus to this letter is the February 2018 issue of the Reader’s Digest under the title of “Curing Cancer with your own cells” which states that “CAR T Cells are grown in large numbers, modified, attached to CD 19 and then infused back into the patient to kill cancerous cells.”

I assume that this new therapy is limited in availability and therefore very expensive, and will not cause hair loss and probably be less painful. I am sharing with intent to help.

Dan Vicenti
Crownpoint, N.M.

NM state budget makes prudent use of windfall

We are closing in on the halfway mark of the New Mexico legislative session. I wanted to take this opportunity to update you on my work putting together the state budget.

As the chair of the House Appropriations & Finance Committee, it is my responsibility to provide a balanced budget that reflects the priorities and needs of New Mexico and the critical investments that will raise the bar and better the lives of all New Mexicans. Just one year ago, our state found itself nearly insolvent, leading us to make difficult decisions and cuts across all agencies.

I am happy to report that our revenues have exceeded expectations putting us presently in good shape. These gains are largely attributed to production and pricing in the oil and gas industry. I recognize that while this windfall is a blessing, it would be risky to increase the budget substantially betting that this trend will continue. So, I spearheaded the following fiscally conservative framework:

• Budget. We made critical investments in the overall budget by backfilling agencies that were cut last year, but only increased the state’s total budget by 4 percent. This increase virtually matches the executive’s recommendation. Unlike what you see in the toxic Washington, D.C., environment, my committee reached consensus on our budget, reflecting bipartisan compromise and our ability to work across the aisle to reach a deal.
• Reserves. A key priority was to restore our state reserves. Our budget puts over 10 percent into reserve to hedge against potential boom and bust cycles and federal impacts on our state. We also put $16 million into the rainy day fund.
• Public Education. A second priority is making gains in education. This budget increases classroom spending by $69 million dollars, boosts teacher salaries, and makes critical investments into early education where data shows us we can bend the curve and increase success rates.
• Health care. A third priority is securing health care coverage to all New Mexicans, especially for our children and elders. This budget increases Medicaid to a total of $930 million. We also have increased the health department budget to address rising costs and the waiting list for the developmentally disabled and Children, Youth, and Families Department for child care, protective services and domestic violence prevention statewide.
• Compensation. Lastly, we have not provided a raise to any state employees since the Great Recession of 2009. With these increased revenues, we felt it prudent to provide a modest 2 percent increase for all state employees. Further, we made additional raises for those that provide us with public safety, including our state police, prison guards, parole officers and district attorney staff.

During the budget hearing process, I was very disheartened to hear that while Albuquerque receives the press coverage on its crime issues that the city of Gallup per capita has the highest crime rate in the state. Finally, my constituents have impressed upon me the need for state and local road funding so our budget includes $80 million to improve our roads, bridges and transportation facilities.

This budget has many steps to go, but I wanted to provide you a clear understanding of my leadership on forming a prudent budget for our state. I appreciate all of your support and prayers, and look forward to hearing from you.

Patty Lundstrom
State Representative House District 9
Santa Fe, N.M.

---