Assistance for Quake Victims

* In response to “U.S. Officials Misjudged Magnitude of Disaster,” Feb. 4:

While the article focused on the huge numbers of non-English-speaking people requesting assistance from the FEMA sites, I think the National Guard’s role in servicing those individuals should not go unnoticed.

Within one week of the earthquake, as soon as the need was identified and the decision made, approximately 110 foreign language experts from the 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion (Linguist) were brought in from all over the state to provide translator support for the disaster assistance centers. These soldiers were desperately needed and greatly appreciated by both the victims of the quake and FEMA representatives at the sites.

The majority of the linguists involved in this recovery process have spent many years learning and perfecting not only their language of specialty, but also their direct communication skills. With these tools they were able to offer more than simple communication; they soothed frazzled nerves, offered comfort in the face of disaster and provided a feeling of calm control.

This is the first time a battalion of linguists has ever been called out to provide language support for a major disaster in any U.S. city.

Now, with downsizing such a large issue in the National Guard, the linguists’ contribution in this disaster and the potential for an even greater contribution in future emergencies only serve to strengthen the California National Guard’s position as an important and extremely necessary part of our state’s emergency preparedness team.

LT. COL. JAMES P. COMBS

Commander, 223rd Military Intelligence

Battalion (Linguist), California Army

National Guard, San Francisco

* Rep. Howard Berman (D-Panorama City) deserves the fullest support of all Californians for his bill to remove limitations on taxpayer deductions for losses occurring in an area the President has declared as a disaster area (Feb. 8).

At present the only bone Internal Revenue Code throws the devastated taxpayer is the option of taking the deduction in either the year of the disaster or the year preceding. Otherwise IRC restricts the deduction to the amount in excess of 10% of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income plus $100. Berman’s bill removes these limitations under such circumstances as our recent quake.

Since the federal government can provide only very limited financial aid, Berman’s bill is badly needed to relieve distress and get our economy moving again.

ANDREW LANDAY

Santa Monica

* I can’t recall reading as percipient an editorial about the financing of the cost of repairing damage to the state’s transportation facilities in Los Angeles County as yours of Jan. 21 (“Necessary Evil: A Temporary Gas Tax”). Too many people who advocate the use of bonds to raise money for payment of such repairs disregard (and so does the unsuspecting public) the enormous interest expense of issuing bonds; for every $100 million of bonds, California taxpayers would pay an additional $70 million in interest over the lifetime of the bonds, and that money would emanate from the sorely beleaguered general fund of the state.

Since 1922, Californians have built highways with a user fee; it’s called the gasoline tax and it’s based upon the principle that those who use the facilities should pay for the facilities. It’s less regressive than the totally regressive sales tax and it’s fiscally as prudent a method as can be devised for repairing the earthquake-damaged highways in Los Angeles.

QUENTIN L. KOPP, Chairman

State Senate Committee on Transportation

I-San Francisco

* All federal aid related to the earthquake should be loans, to be paid back at market interest rates. The same goes for aid related to floods, hurricanes, brush fires, etc. It’s completely predictable that, over a long period of time, all these disasters will happen. If people want to live in an earthquake or flood zone, that’s fine, but the rest of the country shouldn’t have to subsidize their choice.

TOM TULINSKY

Los Angeles

* Larraine Segil’s call for government and business to focus time and attention on telecommuting (Commentary, Feb. 4) was right on target, but it left out one critical component of our work force: home-based businesses.

After nine years of debate, the city of Los Angeles still doesn’t have an ordinance allowing a person to obtain a business license to work out of his or her home. What’s also troubling is a plan recently approved by a Los Angeles City Council committee. It allows city workers to operate from home with a phone, fax and computer, but someone with a home-based business doing identical tasks can’t be licensed and is subject to prosecution if he or she is caught.

Over 350 of California’s more than 450 cities and 42 of our 58 counties allow people to work at home under certain conditions. Because some 2,500 residents applying for such a permit are turned down by Los Angeles each year, the city is losing licensing revenue.

DEBRA BOWEN

State Assembly, D-Marina del Rey