No New Taxes
Editor: Who does this R. Robert Linowes think he is?
He says that the Maryland taxpayer will not mind paying more in taxes if it is spent in the way he suggests and collected or assessed in the manner he recommends! Is that so? Has this man taken a sample poll to find this out, or does he just pull it out of his hat?
The last election indicates to me that the Maryland taxpayer is fed up with increased taxes no matter how he pays them or how the money is spent.
I think he and our chief executive better get with it and read the writing on the wall: No new taxes.
James J. Reilly.
Baltimore.
State Benefits
Editor: As a state employee, I feel compelled to write in defense of our position regarding the proposed 40-hour work week.
I have difficulty understanding the public's notion that state employees are somehow spoiled and should be so grateful for having a job that working a measly extra 4.5 hours each week without pay should be accepted smilingly.
Believe me, we are very happy to have jobs and do realize that there are those who are not so lucky. However, perhaps the public is minimizing what 4.5 hours per week adds up to over the course of a year. The fact is we would be working an extra 6 weeks without pay.
We accepted positions with the state after being tested, interviewed and given a set of benefits and a salary scale to which we agreed. The salary that we receive is compensation for 35.5 hours per week, as was stated in any hiring negotiations that may have taken place.
The state now decides that it will: (1) Freeze our cost-of-living increases; (2) freeze promotions; (3) cut back our benefits and (4) raise our hours per week.
I wonder how many people employed in private industry would accept those changes in their contract without some chord of discontent.
Starrla Ippolito.
Catonsville.
Banking Services Cost Money
Editor: If enough bank customers follow the ill-conceived advice given to them by consumer advocates in The Sun and other publications, there will simply never be an end to the expensive banking disasters that have already laid a heavy burden on the American taxpayer and can be expected to lay on even heavier ones far into the future.
In a recent -- but far from unique -- example, Philip Moeller offered the customary catastrophic advice: always take your checking account to the bank with the lowest net service charges.
But the services that banks provide are not furnished without cost. They are performed by human beings who must be paid at the prevailing wages of 1991, not of 1935.
If they are not performed by humans, they are carried out by expensive computers with expensive software.
The automatic teller machine did not find its way into your bank's wall by miraculous intervention, nor does it print its own money. The ancillary costs of running a bank are constantly rising.
Let us consider how two competing banks cope with these costs:
Bank A charges its customers a schedule of fees appropriate to the costs of the services rendered. Since its costs are paid by those for whom the services are performed, it can employ their money in sound, highly-rated, safe investments and prudent loans, passing on most of the interest earned to the depositors. The money will be safeguarded and the bank will not be a burden on the FDIC or on the taxpayer.
Bank B renders all its services free or at a very low cost and advertises the fact lavishly. It can cover its costs, and the costs of the advertising, only by searching out the most desperate individuals and the most unstable corporations, who necessarily have to pay higher rates on loans than do more desirable applicants. It invests its money in shaky loans and junk bonds. When the bad bonds default and the bad borrowers declare bankruptcy, the bank becomes a liability to the FDIC and to the taxpayer.
Depositors who follow the advice of Philip Moeller -- or Ralph Nader or Jane Bryant Quinn -- will unhesitatingly place their money in Bank B. When Bank B suffers insolvency, Mr. Moeller and his counterparts will hold up their hands in pious horror.
It is most regrettable that consumer advisers, asked to choose between a responsibly-managed institution and a recklessly-managed one, will in so many cases direct their readers and their funds toward the one most likely to become insolvent.
Robert L. Taylor.
Timonium.
Shell Games
Editor:
Who's gotta egg
Who's gotta egg
Who's gotta guinea-gee
Who wanna pick-a me
Who's gotta egg?
That was the oft-repeated challenge during the week between Palm Sunday and Easter all around the Patterson Park-Highlandtown area by the neighboring boys during the 1920s.
Never having heard the phrase "egg-fighting' described by Roger Tatarian, we have always considered this practice completely provincial and the private domain of East Baltimore where the only name of the game was "pickin' eggs."
Selection of candidate eggs was performed by tapping the pointed end against one of the front teeth (median incisors). It was often observed that "this is a good one," even though no one could possibly prove the hardness of a shell unless it smashed completely at that moment.
When contestants met, a decision was made, sometimes by tossing a coin. Then the defendant would hold his egg upright surrounded by thumb and forefinger flesh in a manner and style which would permit only the smallest possible exposure of his egg shell.
First the attacking point (narrow end) would be struck against the defending point. If a crack was accomplished, the opponents would test their "butts" similarly. Each trial permitted only one stroke and the attacker and defender would exchange positions, point-to-point, butt-to-butt and point-to-butt.
Whoever accomplished the greatest number of cracks onto his opponent's egg would therefore "win" and would gain the egg.
Winning was rather oxymoronic because each boy carried his winnings home in a brown paper bag, all adrip with cracked "treasures." I recall the many times my mother would accept these sodden sacks from my brother John who was rather adept at the game. I recall my mother's under-the-breath groan, "What in heaven's name can I do with all these dripping eggs?"
I can also recall many shouts of "cheater" and how the losers would demand to examine winning eggs to see whether they had been doctored by draining and refilling with waterglass or silicate substances.
Our recollections go back to 1920 and 1921. We would be interested in learning whether our Baltimore game pre-dated Mr. Tatarian's description of the game in Fresno, Calif.
Paul A. Rohde.
Baltimore.
Get On With It
Editor: It is time that we put the non-productive and wasteful governor-bashing behind us and get on with managing our economy.
Gov. William Donald Schaefer, to his credit, seems to have recognized that he can take the lead in getting this state's economy back on its feet by creating jobs. Thus his trip to Kuwait.
There is a very large potential for Maryland industry in the Middle East. If the governor is successful in bringing only a small portion of the estimated $200 billion dollar Kuwait restoration effort to this state, we will benefit.
Orders to small Maryland firms which otherwise might not have the expertise to gain access to this market would create jobs, increase tax revenues and help people get off public assistance. Among other things, this would help increase consumer confidence without which we will not get out of any recession.
Many disagree with the governor's style as reported by the media, however accurate that may be.
But if Maryland firms get orders and people get jobs, those people helped in the process won't care about style at all. They will judge on results.
It is time for the media to recognize his efforts in attempting to do something positive. If the media damage his work in the Middle East, it hurts the people of this state. Let us get on with substance and get off style.
The governor's trip and his efforts with the Kuwait Maryland Partnership Inc. may turn out to be one of the more visionary efforts taken by any governor during this recession.
At least give him a chance to succeed. Then judge and not until then.
Gary C. Granai.
Easton.