Breach of Faith

Editor: According to Sandy Banisky's Dec. 20 article, the governor's Commission on Efficiency and Economy in Government is urging the state to break its faith with hundreds of faculty and staff of the University of Maryland System.

The promise of tuition remission has been repeatedly used to attract faculty and staff into the university system who might otherwise have taken higher paying jobs elsewhere. Yet the commission has proposed that free tuition for non-faculty staff and their families be ended permanently and that faculty tuition subsidies be reduced temporarily to 50 percent of current levels.

As a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, I have grave concerns about such recommendations. Given the current mess in Annapolis, however, I have little faith that they will be rejected out of hand, as they should be.

With cuts of more than 20 percent in the university budget, with my salary already compromised by furloughs and with the promise of tuition remission in doubt, I worry if my other benefits, like health insurance and retirement, are secure. I also question if the state's assurances are of any value when earlier promises are already being broken.

The sad fact is that the money the commission hopes to save will do little for the burgeoning state budget deficit. Instead, this proposal, if adopted, will be another step in the destruction of the University of Maryland.

Robert J. Bloch.

Baltimore.

Big Oil

Editor: After reading the letter, "Air Quality in Maryland" (Dec. 18), I noted that the writer was Michael D. McDonald, executive director of the Maryland Petroleum Council.

His Annapolis address suggested that he is also their lobbyist.

This explains his extremely biased slant and phony and misleading scare statistics regarding costs, employment levels and air quality improvement for the use of tougher air quality standards in Maryland equal to those in California.

Mr. McDonald is obviously concerned that increased engine efficiencies and the use of commercial electric vehicles will reduce the consumption of gasoline. There are test vehicles available already in this country as well as in Japan, Sweden and West Germany that will give over 50 miles per gallon and have standard configurations. Increased mileage means cheaper operating costs for the motorists.

There are 12 states in this country that are following the lead of California simply because the Clean Air Act does not go far enough.

Isn't it strange that the big oil corporations never include the costs of pollution in their statements? These additional costs would have to include the effects of excess acid rain from vehicles on the acidity of the Chesapeake Bay which damages fish and crab and other shellfish reproduction. The excess acid rain also depletes soils and reduces crop yields, damages bridges and other structures, injures public health and increases the greenhouse effect.

Big oil is living in the past. It is time they gave the quality of the environment the attention it deserves.

Ernest M. Stolberg.

Baltimore.

Fathers

Editor: I applaud and commend Garland L. Thompson for his timely article on December 21 entitled "Santa, Can You Bring My Daddy Home?"

Such a story was long overdue.

As a divorced father without custody I am painfully aware of the unreasonable treatment accorded fathers by the court system. (My child support payments are $40 higher than my mortgage.)

Just last year my lawyer was before a judge in Towson in an emergency hearing so I could get my son on Christmas Day -- the only holiday the legal system gave me before my divorce was final.

The problems with the system are many and there are few winners, if any, on either side.

One of the biggest problems is the way non-custodial fathers are viewed. As Mr. Thompson pointed out: society cannot keep sweeping us under the rug.

Nick S. Chirigos.

Randallstown.

MVA Failure

Editor: I am outraged over the Motor Vehicle Administration's failure to notify motorists when their license tag renewal is due.

I am the third individual in my circle of friends who has recently been caught by the police driving with expired license tags. None of us received a license tag renewal form from the MVA, nor was aware that our tags were not current. (I drove for six months with expired tags).

I realize that these incidents possibly could have been unintentional oversights by the MVA. However, ticketing honest motorists, instead of giving them a few days to renew their tags, does not represent a system of securing justice but one of securing revenue.

Such action by the police is insensitive and seemingly portrays an intentional attempt by the state to acquire additional revenue through another obscure method.

Ray Naccarato.

Joppatowne.

Panacea

Editor: We can improve the nation's health situation by raising taxes on all damaging products such as tobacco, caffeine and alcohol.

It is urgent that consumption of these deadly substances be curtailed so as to reduce illnesses, absences from work, fatalities. Add $1 a pack tax to the cost of cigarettes. This additional revenue will reduce layoffs and cutbacks in needed services. Maryland tobacco growers may disapprove, but the majority will definitely benefit.

In every office and factory where coffee is consumed there should be a surcharge of 25 cents for each cup of coffee. The funds would be collected and remitted to the local government. As the coffee fund grows, tensions and nervousness will diminish. Efficiency and productivity will improve considerably and result in millions of dollars in revenue.

These taxes will certainly help families trying to pay for food, housing, clothing and essential services and in turn reduce the amount of taxes paid by you and me.

Let's make it harder for workers to ruin their health and productivity and at the same time easier to raise additional revenues to avoid further terminations, layoffs and cutbacks.

Victor Frenkil.

Baltimore.

Burst Balloon

Editor: Somewhere along the line, the press in particular and the public generally have forgotten history when it comes to taxes.

The media, though, has fed the anti-tax fire. Overlooked by you (and all economists) is the fact that taxes have been cut, cut substantially in the last decade while the cost of living and governmental operations have soared upward.

In 1966, a married taxpayer was subject to a tax of $160 for the first $1,000. After that, there were incremental increases for tax brackets up to $36,000 when the tax was $11,000 plus 47.5 percent of the excess. At the same time, the standard deduction and exemption was lower. By the way, there were then 12 tax brackets.

In 1990, the tax across the board for the first $32,450 was 15 percent and the maximum was 33 percent of the amount over $47,050. There were only three tax brackets.

At the same time, both standard deduction and exemption rates substantially increased.

Put in another context, if one were to take his tax return for 1990 and use his 1966 tax rate schedule, he would see that there would have been a substantial increase.

There is room for criticism that some members of Congress have a philosophy of "tax and spend." There are places still where the federal government can make cuts and not hurt the public except those receiving money for frivolous projects. To the extent cuts are not being made it is the fault of Congress, which appropriates the money. This has to be addressed, and the media can play a big part in exposing these excesses and putting on the pressure to curb them. This, they are not doing.

Federal employees performing legitimate services are entitled to good living wage (just like the president and members of Congress). We should be willing also to pay for legitimate services performed by others in carrying out government operations. Since 1966, the cost of everything has increased; federal taxes have decreased per dollar of income.

We are reaching a point where the balloon is about to burst. Whether we like it or not, whether we are willing to admit it or not, we are technically bankrupt. Printing money for the sake of covering our debts and floating loans every other Monday with T-bills is not going to solve the problem.

The deficit is only going to increase further, leaving not only our children but our great-great grandchildren one huge burden to shoulder.

Richard L. Lelonek.

Baltimore.

Saving South Mountain

Editor: Maryland and the federal government are condemning and confiscating private homes and property in Washington and Frederick counties.

They may not have enough money for education or essential services, but they can afford to attempt to force homeowners to give up their property. The ostensible reason for this is seemingly laudatory, to protect natural areas.

Condemnation and confiscation of homes and property is not necessary to protect the trail. The Appalachian Trail Conference and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources contend that private property must be acquired to protect it from development.

They won't tell you the property they intend to confiscate is already protected. Conservation zoning is in place along the trail. This means a minimum of three acres in Washington County and five acres in Frederick County for a single home. Building and zoning requirements make even this level of development unlikely. This provides protection for the trail without reducing the base of private homes and property.

The ATC and the DNR will tell you that the land is required for hiking trails and recreation areas.

What they won't tell you is that the land they want to confiscate is less than one and a half miles from a national park and only three miles from a state park. Together these adjoining parks constitute about 15 square miles.

They don't mention that there are four other state parks nearby or that much of the remaining South Mountain land in Washington County is already in the public domain.

We support the need to preserve these areas, but they are not threatened by the few homeowners who live in South Mountain. Better and less expensive alternatives to property confiscation exist.

!Jack and Rita Gertzog.

Smithsburg.

The writers are members of (RAFAL) Residents Against Forced Acquisition of Land.