Street-fighting pols
Now that the votes have been counted I would like to express my disappointment in the behavior of many of the candidates in Maryland and across the country.
Their display of "statesmanship" in the months leading up to election day amounted to little more than choreographed street fighting.
I heard one political strategist comment that his candidate was just "bringing a gun to a knife fight." It was a nice metaphor; I can see the kids quoting that in social studies class.
My greatest disappointment, though, is that my vote will be interpreted by these junkyard dogs as an endorsement of more negative campaigning.
A campaign for political office in America should be a journey of ideas, a contrast of solutions and the birthplace of new questions.
Please, we deserve better.
Stephen Doxzen
Baltimore
Campaign ads
I felt growing concern about the great amount of anger that seemed to show itself as we approached Election Day -- an anger that seemed to be evidencing itself more strongly than common sense.
A recent article about two prominent candidates for office who were defeated in the primary, Melvin Steinberg and Helen Bentley, included some quotes that evidenced a kind of wisdom very much needed in the midst of so much anger ("For Md.'s high-profile losers, a look back with bitterness," Nov. 2).
Mr. Steinberg's statement about the necessity for our much-maligned entitlement programs was a truth that the public needs to think carefully about.
And when Ms. Bentley said that "contrary to popular belief, most elected officials really work very hard on behalf of their constituents, and on behalf of the public," that, too, was a truth we very much need to hear.
Having said this, however, the political ads that flooded the airways in recent weeks force me to conclude that politicians on both sides of the issues must share a part of the blame for citizens showing more anger than wisdom in the way they cast their votes.
If what those running for office said about their opponents being Russian agents or having voted for projects that waste millions of dollars were true, citizens could only conclude that there are no decent candidates to vote for.
I have heard that politicians can't get elected without this type of mudslinging. But what kind of system is it that seeks to arouse public anger to the extent that out of desperation we lay aside any attempt to get at the truth and end up voting for the person about whose credentials to hold office we know the least?
John Mote
Baltimore
Newt's mantra
It is frightening when hypocrisy and demagogy are blatant but ignored. The Republican "Contract For America" is not just a throwback to Reaganism, but a retreat from decency.
Rep. Newt Gingrich personifies much that is wrong with the mentality of Congress in both parties.
Take, for example, the predominantly Republican mantra of "term limits."
Gingrich and his party feel the new generation of members of Congress are susceptible to all kinds of influences that would destroy their objectivity and commitment to the people they serve.
They think the new members of Congress would fall prey to the special interests and that the only way to save them from such temptations is to limit their terms in office.
Yet they are adamant in their refusal to include themselves in this legislation. They do not want it for themselves. They will do all they can to maintain their own hold on power.
Their likely argument, if it exists, would be that they were not elected under such rules. But if there were any credibility to this rationale they would have resigned Nov. 8.
yles B. Hoenig
Baltimore
'Number 1 male'
Someone should inform Gregory Kane that the term "Number 1 male" has absolutely nothing to do with "racism."
When I first came to this country in 1967, a "Number 1 Male" was a white man. The designation came from the era's non-photo ID driver's licenses, which had a numeric code to identify the race of the license holder (the numeral 1 signifying white, number 2 black, etc.).
Sometime during the 1970s the numbers were changed to make the numeral 1 stand for black and number 2 for white.
The numeric designation was to aid the police in making sure the license holder was who it said he or she was, not to identify a suspect.
Mr. Kane should try checking his facts before jumping to conclusions. I've found it's the safest way to avoid foot-in-mouth disease.
Ronald M. Hambrook
Towson
Criticism of Section 8 tenants falls on deaf ears
R. C. Flieg's Nov. 2 letter about Section 8 housing was interesting as much for what it did not say as for what it did.
First, no one is holding a gun to the heads of landlords in order to force them to accept Section 8 housing. Apparently it is a lucrative business; otherwise, landlords would not get into it.
Mr. Flieg describes tenants who receive $1,000 a month in food stamps and a like amount in cash. That translates into $11.54 an hour, or almost triple the minimum wage.
That would explain in large measure why living on welfare is preferable to working. It explains, too, why people find it necessary to hold down two jobs if they are too proud to accept welfare.
However, Mr. Flieg is right when he complains about the ineptitude of housing officials in policing tenants of Section 8 housing.
I have heard many horror stories about occupants of Section 8 housing, especially when one family rents a unit, then sublets part of it to others.
This practice in particular gives Section 8 a very bad name. Complaints made to housing officials invariably fall on deaf ears.
More often than not, it is next to impossible for a neighbor to register a complaint with the landlord, because he is inaccessible.
Section 8 is not a bad idea. It has helped many people to find housing that otherwise would be unavailable to them.
Unfortunately, there are more than a few bad apples in the bushel.
Federal officials who created Section 8 have a responsibility to look into the matter, find out what is wrong and fix it.
It is the taxpayer, as Mr. Flieg points out, who foots the bill for this social experiment, and the taxpayer is entitled to receive something for every dollar spent.
Richard L. Lelonek
Baltimore
A modest proposal to trim welfare
I, like many other middle-class, hard-working taxpayers, am tired of hearing about second- and third-generation welfare recipients being supported by us.
I'm tired of people being supported year in and year out by the taxpayer. We have a tough enough time supporting our own families.
Welfare was designed to be temporary financial help for people who for one reason or another were down on their luck and in need. The key word is temporary.
We need an answer. I have a possible solution. Welfare payments should be made for six months.
During this six months you must receive your checks monthly at a monitoring center.
Before you are issued our hard-earned tax dollars you must provide proof that you have actively sought employment at least three times per week during the past month.
If you don't comply, you don't receive a check.
If you have not found employment during this six-month period and still desire financial assistance, you must work for the local or state government.
Recipients could contribute in a score of ways -- painting, cleaning up neighborhoods, road crews, etc. This would continue for a maximum of one year.
Support would end after 18 months. A benefit review board might in extreme cases extend benefits for a maximum of six more months.
This would be done on a case by case basis. After that, a person on welfare could not apply for benefits again for seven years, the same as filing for bankruptcy.
And mothers on welfare would receive no additional benefits for children born while they were on the rolls.
This may sound hard, but it will also teach them a hard lesson of responsibility.
I know we are supposed to be our brother's keeper. We can keep them for a reasonable time. But longer than 18 to 24 months is not temporary. It becomes a lifestyle that the taxpayers are saying more and more they do not wish to support.
Things have obviously gotten way out of hand with the welfare system, and we've waited far to long to rein it in. The time has come to say enough.
ames E. Lorter
Baltimore