Duke's Their Man

Editor: It is fascinating that George Bush, Dan Quayle, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and other top Republicans who have repeatedly campaigned for Jesse Helms want to distance themselves from their fellow Republican David Duke. They made him possible; they created a political party which legitimized his views; they will have to live with him.

David H. Pardoe.

Columbia.

Worried, Too

Editor: Jack Kammer is not the only one who is worried (Garland L. Thompson, "Making Families with Only Half the Family," Nov. 2).

As a member of the governor's task force referred to in Mr. Thompson's column, I am joined in my concerns by all the task force members and members of the task force subcommittee on child custody and access to children, which I chair. However, our worry, unlike the one expressed in the column, is neither self-centered nor centered on parental rights, but concerns the rights of children.

We are striving to address and correct any inequities in treatment of mothers or fathers which may impact on the interests of their children. We do so within great financial constraints; all task force and committee members are volunteering their time.

Mr. Thompson reports our having availed ourselves of the assistance of local women's commissions and suggests an inherent bias. He fails to mention that Mr. Kammer was invited to assist us in publicizing the hearings and that he declined because he had no finances to support his efforts. In fact, the help we did receive was voluntary and unpaid.

The women's commissions were kind enough to provide logistical support including mailings to editors and media throughout the state. Mr. Thompson does not mention that interested fathers have been invited, Mr. Kammer among them, and have articulately addressed my subcommittee and the task force itself, informing us of their concerns. Their suggestions and careful study of other states have been extremely helpful, so far, in defining committee goals and developing recommendations for change.

I would ask that in the future, Mr. Thompson attempt to corroborate his information lest he not perpetuate the very biased thinking he deems so dangerous.

Alice G. Dvoskin.

Baltimore.

The writer is a member of the Governor's Task Force on Family Law.

Changing News Business

Editor: Richard Reeves' column, "The End of What Used to be Called News," is the first article I've seen which explores the demise of the "news" business.

As an elected public official, I am very interested in the news. Yet, the news stories within the pages of The Sun and other newspapers seem to be diminishing -- especially state and local coverage. And, news has been reduced to stories about the latest murder, robbery or institutional press release. Very little is printed concerning local or state government.

Government can function properly only when there is a reasonably informed citizenry. Historically, newspapers have been the principal means by which citizens have obtained information about what is happening within government, what issues are being debated and what are the policy options available. Television will never be able to cover the "who, what, where, when, why and how" to the degree a newspaper can.

When I first took office in 1983, I could read The Sun and the News American and find out what was going on in just about every committee of the General Assembly. Reporters covered hearings -- even the most mundane hearings. The general public could get enough information to understand what was going on and could make reasonably informed judgments. These judgments provided feedback to elected officials.

However, over the past decade newspapers have become "written television," reporting the feelings without examining the soul.

I do not suggest that the failure of newspaper reporting of the various aspects of government is the sole cause of the breakup of the social contract. I only suggest that the lack of ongoing information about what government is doing is a major factor for its demise.

If citizens are unable to obtain the facts about their government and its function, the demagogic politician who promises more or less and simple solutions to complex problems will have a field day at the polls. We will all suffer then.

Lawrence LaMotte.

Woodstock.

The writer represents Baltimore and Carroll counties in the House of Delegates.

No Big Thing

Editor: The media and The Sun in particular are reading far too much into the election of Sen. Harris Wofford, Democrat of Pennsylvania. In my view, his election had little to do with the Bush policies or the popularity of George Bush.

Harris Wofford was elected mainly on one issue -- national health insurance, an idea whose time has come. The manner in which the Thornburgh campaign tried to undercut this issue, coupled hTC with dirty media tactics, turned the voters against Dick Thornburgh.

Orville Hughes.

Jim Thorpe, Pa.

Buckle Up, Gang

Editor: We read daily about vehicle accidents resulting in the deaths of passengers. The Nov. 15 Sun contains articles about two such accidents. Both victims were thrown either partially or completely from their vehicles.

Each time I hear about a personal-injury accident, I wonder whether the passengers were wearing their seat belts. I have been in two accidents in which I was hit from behind with such force that I know I would have gone through the windshield had I not been wearing mine. Long before it became the law in Maryland to wear a seat belt, it just made sense.

Carol G. Rosenthal.

Randallstown.

Dagger Drawn

OC

Editor: All I can say about Pat Buchanan is, "Et tu Brute?"

F. E. Roux.

Aberdeen.

Robert Embry's Critics

Editor: Two of your correspondents have taken issue with Robert C. Embry Jr.'s timely statement of Maryland's need to deal with "social, health, crime and education problems" (Oct. 23).They resented his term "selfishness" for those who are able but unwilling to pay higher taxes. Yet their letters reveal if not selfishness in the usual sense of greed, then surely in their self-centered assumptions of how the state should operate.

Those of us who live at a safe distance from poverty may not often dwell on the state and federal government services we take for granted as we carp at "social programs" for those less fortunate.

Is it proper for the government to insure mortgages for home owners but not to provide low-cost housing subsidies? To compensate fully those who lost money by seeking high returns from savings and loan institutions, while only a minority of those who lose their jobs receive even partial unemployment compensation? To provide medivac service in outlying areas but not basic health care for inner-city residents?

Both of Mr. Embry's critics brand his views socialistic, yet anyone reading about the world economy knows that the United States has lower levels of taxation and of support for human services than any other major industrial nation, including our most successful capitalist rivals.

Both letters allege the failure of social programs because the problems they address still persist, yet we don't stop providing highways and utilities in suburbia when the influx overtakes capacity. Everyone who examines programs like Head Start, WIC and preventive health programs, all now severely curtailed, finds that they yield savings of many times their costs, as do many other remedial measures that are labeled "handouts" by those who seem more willing to pay for jails than for programs of support.

People living in Fallston or New Windsor may not feel threatened, but -- all humanitarian considerations aside -- as our cities become less hospitable, migration to surrounding areas grows at unendurable costs to both families and the environment. As the Barnes "2020" report made clear last year, countians ignore the city's problems at their own peril.

Both of Mr. Embry's critics object to his "spending my money" -- presumably not in his capacity as a private sector foundation executive, but in his volunteer role as president of the State Board of Education.

One, who calls himself (as is this writer) "a capitalist living in a capitalist society," argues that high taxes may keep business from locating in Maryland. But a presentation made last year by professional consultants with business sponsorship showed that an under-educated labor force is now the major obstacle to the region's future economic expansion.

Similarly, the Greater Baltimore Committee supported the Linowes Commission proposals because successful capitalism cannot ignore needs for housing, health care, education, day care, public safety, environmental quality and a workable infrastructure -- all of which are now being strangled because of insufficient state revenues.

It was no socialist or "tax-and-spend" Democrat, but Theodore Roosevelt who said, "this country will not be a permanently good place to live unless it's a good place for all of us to live," and it was Justice Holmes who wrote: "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society."

Sidney Hollander Jr.

Baltimore.