“Utilities power down on building plans,” Nov. 6 business news story.

You won’t hear the New Energy Economy naysayers crowing about Mark Jaffe’s story in Sunday’s Post.

Last year, Xcel estimated that to meet demand it would need to provide an additional 1,000 megawatts of electricity by 2020. Now, Jaffe reports, the utility has slashed that estimate to 292 megawatts, and it is mothballing plans to buy energy from solar arrays in the San Luis Valley.

Xcel now says it can satisfy demand by buying electricity from small, independent producers, including the 10,000 homeowners who have taken advantage of its solar reward program and can actually make their meters run backward and sell electricity back to the utility.

Some of the slowdown in projected demand is a result of the recession. But energy efficiency is good policy in any economic climate, and Democratic legislators have helped push Colorado to the front of the pack for smart energy use.

Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, sponsored legislation in 2007 launching utility company rebates for customers who buy energy-efficient lights, insulation and appliances, including rooftop solar. Rep. Judy Solano, D-Thornton, who made two-way metering happen in 2007, came back in 2010 with legislation to push utilities to clean up their polluting coal-fired power plants, and I kept up the momentum by sponsoring the bill that increased the state’s renewable energy standard to 30 percent.

This summer’s crop of homegrown tomatoes is already a fading memory. But reduced utility bills produced by homegrown electricity and energy efficiency will stay with us month after month, year after year.

State Rep. Max Tyler, Golden

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Re: “The government’s not here to help,” Nov. 6 Colorado Voices column.

Columnist Michael Alcorn has a friend who seeks taxpayer dollars in the form of an Army contract, and notices no government involvement until the Small Business Administration engages in oversight, in the form of unspecified “bureaucratic nitpicking.” And his friend Tammy and her husband accept a government paycheck because he is a teacher, but Tammy and Michael notice no government presence until the district’s conflict-of-interest rules seek to protect taxpayer dollars through oversight.

Stunned by these seemingly impossible contradictions, I continued to read Mr. Alcorn’s argument against “more government power over my life,” but was not surprised when the other shoe dropped: Mr. Alcorn, it seems, is a government employee himself (a teacher). He raises his right hand to object to the “core liberal belief that government can do more with my money for the people and causes I believe in than I can,” even while he and his friends hold out their left hands for more of those government dollars.

Where is the line between unspeakable blindness and rank hypocrisy?

Andrew R. Lewis, Englewood

This letter was published in the Nov. 10 edition.

It is not a “core liberal belief that the government can do more with my money for the people and causes that I believe in than I can,” as Michael Alcorn asserted. In fact, it’s a core piece of Republican propaganda that liberals believe government can do more with my money, etc. Republicans also preach the falsehood that liberals’ “solutions almost always involve more government power over my life.” Liberalism has always opposed any powerful group’s attempts to dominate society and therefore individuals, while conservatism has tended to protect and promote the powerful and the wealthy. Look around.

“Conservative” and “liberal” have little meaning these days, thanks to right-wing labeling. Republicans aren’t really conservative anymore, nor are most Democrats “liberals,” according to the Republican definition. Nor is government an evil to be distrusted; no genuine conservative or genuine liberal believes such nonsense. The real enemy is “labelthink.”

Daniel W. Brickley, Littleton

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Re: “More equality? More capitalism,” Nov. 4 David Harsanyi column.

David Harsanyi clearly demonstrated a disconnect from reality when he wrote: “If the wealthy get wealthier, no one has to become one penny poorer.” That’s a nice theory. However, consider the trillions of taxpayer dollars used to keep Wall Street afloat. After the bailout, Wall Street resumed paying huge bonuses, further enriching itself at taxpayer expense.

Large corporations have also influenced politicians to change the tax code, dropping the corporate share of federal taxes from an average of about 28 percent in the 1950s to an average of roughly 10 percent from 2001 to 2010. In addition, the extremely wealthy somehow influenced politicians to drop the top marginal individual tax rate from 91 percent in 1954 to 35 percent today. These changes have greatly impacted our fiscal health.

Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter David Cay Johnston’s book “Free Lunch” provides numerous other examples of how the extremely wealthy have influenced the political system to benefit themselves at fellow taxpayers’ expense.

Ron Forthofer, Longmont

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Re: “Colorado Springs could take economic bullet if deficit panel fails to reach accord,” Nov. 2 news story.

Your article on how cuts to defense could endanger jobs in Colorado Springs neglected to explain exactly how automatic defense cuts would work if Congress fails to agree on a budget deal by the end of the year. Under the “sequester” stipulation of the debt ceiling deal, $600 billion — above and beyond the $450 billion in cuts already enacted — would be hacked from the defense budget by slashing every single Pentagon line-item.

As Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said before the House Armed Services Committee, these cuts would have a detrimental effect on all of the Air Force’s investment accounts, including new refueling tankers, tactical fighter jets, remotely piloted aircraft, and long-range strike bombers.

The cuts could also halt improvements to missile defenses that are our only protection from ballistic missile attack. Meanwhile, Iran, North Korea and Syria are collaborating with countries like China and Pakistan to develop nuclear ballistic missiles could be capable within a few years of delivering a devastating electromagnetic-pulse weapon above U.S. territory, or even hitting a U.S. city.

Bentley Rayburn, Colorado Springs

This letter was published in the Nov. 10 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Re: “Air Force Academy retreats from religious charity after criticism,” Nov. 4 news story.

The Air Force Academy recently came under fire for alleged religious intolerance. There is a line between separation of religion and intolerance of religion in the separation of church and state. When a culture, society or people wants to remove anything connected with religion from government so completely as to deny poor children presents on Christmas, I think we are crossing the line from the separation of religion to the intolerance of religion. Who wants to be the one to tell a child they couldn’t receive a present this year because we can’t allow the government to have any connection to any religion in any shape or form, and for that high ideal they must suffer?

Aaron Jones, Castle Rock

I am one of the 99 percent, and am also against excess. However, why punish the wealthy for being wealthy? That smacks of socialism, which is exactly what the majority of Occupy protesters believe in. My father is retired, worked for two companies over a 40-year span, and is now living quite comfortably. He earned every dime of his money, and is rightly entitled to it. He never took anything from anybody that wasn’t earned. Why should my dad share his wealth with some unemployed protester who probably lives a day-to-day existence? That is just wrong.

Jim Burkett, Aurora

I would like to offer a simple solution to putting a dent in the unemployment rate. There is a population of workers in the 55-65 age range who would quickly retire if they could afford health care. How about offering Medicare to anyone in this age group who chooses to retire? This group could pay a monthly rate to the government for this insurance. This rate could match what it costs the government, which would be lower than obtaining insurance in the private market. Similar to Social Security, there could be a low earnings cap such that if you do earn income, you lose this benefit. What would this do? Open up jobs to a younger population while providing funding to the Medicare program.

Pam Lacey, Denver

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Re: “Bachmann: Protesters’ focus on wrong target,” Nov. 4 news brief.

Michele Bachmann calls Occupy Wall Street protesters misguided and says they should instead direct their anger at Washington politicians. But why deal with middlemen when you can take your complaints to the power brokers of American politics? The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people and money is speech; Washington politicians are merely mouthpieces of their campaign donors, protecting the very people who profit while the country languishes.

And seeing that a majority of politicians in Washington are Republicans, Bachmann knows fulls well that they will ignore the OWS protesters just as surely as they have ignored the majority of Americans who support raising taxes on the rich to balance the budget and implement public works programs to spur economic growth and reduce unemployment.

Congress is stonewalling America’s recovery in order to protect the interests of its wealthiest funders. In 2012, it’s time to occupy Congress with representatives who will work for the interests of 99 percent of Americans, not the 1 percent.

William Autrey, Boulder

This letter was published in the Nov. 9 edition.

Re: “Occupy movement isn’t about government,” Nov. 4 letter to the editor.

I take issue with letter-writer Joan Jacobson, who opines that corporate greed bears most of the responsibility for our economic problems.

It is up to the government, not to guarantee success, but to provide a level playing field for citizens and businesses alike, by enacting and enforcing rules and regulations (in other words, governing). When this is not done — as in the reigns of the last four presidents, and unfortunately, this one — the greedy few will always take advantage; and others, should they wish to survive, must follow suit.

There always has been, and always will be, greed — corporate and otherwise — but presidents such as Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who faced many of the same problems, limited the deleterious effects of corporate greed by putting their respective feet down and enforcing business and consumer regulations.

R. Kiefer, Arvada

This letter was published in the Nov. 9 edition.

If you have been watching the Occupy protesters in Colorado, and elsewhere, it is easy to see that anarchy has taken root. If I threw a brick or rock at a cop on one of your streets, it would be fair for the cop to use lethal force and potentially shoot me. If I hit him in the head with a brick, it could kill him. The cops have the right to meet lethal force with lethal force.

The goons in Oakland were throwing bricks and rocks and Molotov cocktails at the cops, but the cops did not fire back with lethal force. In Colorado, one of the [self-proclaimed] Occupy protesters in Fort Collins was arrested and charged with arson for setting a fire that destroyed a $10 million condo under construction and an adjoining building.

Anarchy has taken root among many of those claiming to be the oppressed 99 percent. What a joke.

Steve Sinn, Manitou Springs

This letter was published in the Nov. 9 edition.

The Occupy folks are expressing the frustration that so many of us feel about the economy. Congress’ idea of fixing the economy is to split the baby in two. But unlike the biblical story of King Solomon, they give most of our baby to the rich and powerful and leave us with the diapers.

Congressional gridlock is weakening our country because our two political parties are pulling in different directions. Democrats usually seek a beneficial balance between us ordinary Americans and the corporations where many of us work. Republicans focus rigidly on giving more wealth and power to those who are already wealthy and powerful. And we know who will pay for that.

Many of us are struggling to have a decent life. We can’t afford to hire a lobbyist or to give a lot of money to politicians. But we can make our government and the corporations take notice of us. We can remind them that we don’t have to buy the politics or the products of those who ignore us or treat us like commodities instead of human beings. How much more of the diapers are we going to take?

Doug Long, Rio Rancho, N.M.

This letter was published online only.

Re: “The more things change … ,” Nov. 3 Mike Rosen column.

In mocking the Occupy protesters and rationalizing dangerous economic deregulation, Mike Rosen calls it “a futile moralistic exercise to calculate where ambition ends and greed begins.” Mr. Rosen, ambition is when one works or studies hard to become an entrepreneur, scientist or doctor – productive careers that Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” easily directs to societal benefit. The greed protested by the Occupy movement goes far beyond that – it is a symptom of a loophole-pocked system where “money is speech.” Tax loopholes, subsidies, lobbying and bailouts reward not success but money, and its devious use for political influence. Worse, that money often comes from areas like mortgage bundling and derivatives speculation – pursuits with low to nonexistent societal value. The Occupy movement seeks to rein in reckless financial activities and campaign finance loopholes. This would create more opportunity for everyone to succeed, moving more resources toward productive ambition and fewer towards destructive greed.

Bennett McIntosh, Littleton

This letter was published online only.

No matter what your political or economic persuasions are, you have to appreciate the dedication and physical fortitude of the Occupy Denver community. Not many people sleep on the sidewalk on Broadway when it’s below freezing, for the purpose of sending a message to Wall Street.

Of course, us old timers are having flashes from the past watching the people rise up, take over the streets to confront what we protesters labeled in the ’60s and ’70s as “the establishment,” which in some circles included anyone over 30. The loosely defined establishment, according to us, was sending young people to die in the jungles of Vietnam, it was propping up despotic governments in Central America, it discriminated against blacks and women, it degraded the environment, and maintained a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

Depending on what history you read, the antiestablishment movement made a dent in the establishment’s armor. Apartheid, American-style, was eliminated. Women made advances in equality in the workplace and the decisions regarding their reproductive choices. We accelerated the end to the senseless war in Vietnam. We raised the consciousness of the people about the environment, how it was being degraded by industrial polluters, and it needed to be taken care of. We alerted the American people to the fact that the establishment had a huge stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, long before that phrase became vogue in the 21st century.

To you Occupiers. I’m following your story. You’re taking on a formidable establishment, but it’s possible that you can make Wall Street teeter a little bit. All of you and I know there’s plenty of money in this country so that everyone could have three squares and warm shelter on cold nights. The money just isn’t distributed where it needs to be. The 1 percent has a lot of the money, and they determine where the rest of it goes.

Bill Richey, Aurora

I was attacked by a dog recently. In addition to amputation, I suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome, which makes me acutely aware of dogs.

When did it become OK to take a dog into Walgreens? Or Jo Ann Fabrics? Or bring a dog on the light rail? None of the ones I’ve seen in these locations were service dogs. None were muzzled nor caged.

Business owners, if you allow dogs in your establishment, are you liable if they bite someone? Dog owners, how would you feel if your dog attacked someone? You say your dog would never attack?

Records show each day about 1,000 U.S. citizens require emergency care treatment for dog bite injury.

These dogs have owners, just like you — owners who can be held liable for paying for medical bills, pain and suffering and more.

Weigh your options carefully before you take your dog somewhere. Your decision may come back to bite you.

E. McKee, Denver

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Re: “No horsing around,” Nov. 4 sports story.

John Henderson starts his article: “With the quality of college football in Colorado dropping as fast as our temperature … .” He should look downstate. Colorado State-Pueblo is undefeated, ranked second in the nation, and plays an overwhelming style of football. I realize they are Division II (beneath elite reporters) and they are south of Colorado Springs (cows don’t read newspapers), but they are a Colorado team having a fantastic season.

How about a little recognition from the newspaper of record for the state?

Gerald McPherson, Pueblo