Who'll Pay for Emissions Test Damages?
Anne Arundel County residents, along with the rest of Maryland, can once again be proud of the lawmakers of this fair state. We now have a brand-new emissions test to keep the air fresh as a daisy, while they make you wait 15 minutes, jack up your car, spin your wheels at 55 mph, slam on your brakes and pump air into your fuel system. You car will be subjected to this treatment not by a certified mechanic but by employees of a private firm that has the contract to do emission testing.
How many automobiles will be able to withstand this type of treatment? If they blow up the motor, clog the fuel line or damage the automobile in any way, are they going to be responsible for the repairs?
There are no studies to substantiate that this test is justified. This law was passed two years ago and is a federal requirement. I don't see the federal government stepping in to stop the big companies from polluting the air. I do see more and more rules and regulations being imposed upon the people who work hard to maintain a decent lifestyle. A person's automobile is a necessity and, in most cases, second only to their homes as the most valuable possession they own. To place this possession in the hands of someone who may cause considerable damage is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. . . . Sen. Phil Jimeno has expressed his concern for this testing, as did he two years ago when he opposed this law. Write and call your elected officials. Let them know how you feel.
Ruth Bell
Glen Burnie
Burdens of Health Care
Universal health care must be created in order to preserve the health of Americans now as well as in the future. However, Congress should not mandate that businesses help pay health care costs of their employees because employees would most likely experience a decrease in salary. The problem and criticisms that I have encountered over the past few years, especially as I entered the work force at age 16, are who is going to pay and what kind of quality is expected.
During the wet winter of 1992 and the beginning of 1993, my father developed a case of pneumonia working for a masonry company. Later that year, he was admitted to Harbor Hospital with respiratory problems. Luckily, his wife was employed at a department store which offered a reasonably priced health care which she chose to pay for out of her salary. If they had not accepted the health care, they would have had a large debt with the hospital. Mandates on businesses in this kind of situation would not make a difference, because the overall salaries of the employees would essentially be the same after the health care is paid for.
As I turned 18 last June, I began working for a local and prosperous firm where I was surprised to find that many of the employees strongly opposed universal health care. Their explanation was that the small business owners are going to suffer the most with burdens of health care costs. They also said that they would rather choose their own doctors. I think that health care is unnecessary for some -- people who don't have families to take care of or younger people such as myself who are covered for a few more years under their parents' health insurance. If Congress imposed mandates on businesses to help pay for health care, employees of those firms would most likely experience a decrease in salary because of the added costs to the firm. . . .
I think the only option that would benefit all would be to cut government waste and discontinue unpopular and unneeded programs, putting the tax dollars already taken from the people to work for the people. Raising taxes on the people who need health care is not an option, but raising taxes on the more fortunate citizens could be an option if they were not in such strong ties with politics. These are the dilemmas that Congress must face in order to ensure the well-being of all Americans.
Steve Hill
Pasadena
Silent Moment to Fight Decay
Michael Olesker says we miss the point when we suggest a return of prayer in school. He says sometimes "things simply change." What do you suggest, Michael, that we do to counter three decades of moral decline and change? Do you have any ideas?
I have an idea. I think we can light one symbolic candle in the darkness. If an institution of omnipresence and authority encourages a moment each day to look at a higher being for solace, and to resist temptation and to do the right thing, maybe this subtle gesture will strengthen some resolve.
For decades, some people have thrown 2,000 years of tried and true Judeo-Christian traditions and ethics out the window. But where are their better ideas? Where's their sterling alternative? Where's their better world?
Anne Owen
Annapolis