Lesson of '94: the politicians just don't get it
It is difficult to understand how anyone could miss the point of what happened during last month's elections.
L But apparently many people in high places just don't get it.
The public isn't asking politicians to put a new face on old politics; we want change, not a disguise.
I get the feeling from what a lot of people are saying that the electorate "just didn't understand." The reality is that we understood all too well -- and we want a change.
The middle class has spoken; we want less intrusive government, politicians who are responsive to our needs and who represent our interests rather than their own or those of some radical minority group.
We want politicians to focus on our own law-abiding citizens, not illegal immigrants, convicted criminals, Third World banana republics or former enemies.
We want the rights of the law-abiding individual given at least the same weight as those of the criminal.
We want smaller, fiscally responsible government.
The day of the $500 toilet seat should be well gone.
We want people held accountable for the consequences of their acts, and we want poverty to cease to be the justification of criminal and aberrant behavior.
We have far too many success stories in this country to refute that proposition.
We want our government to spend our money on us. The concept that criminals or people illegally in this country (also criminals) have a right to anything other than decent treatment is repugnant.
These people are putting it over on us; they're breaking the country and laughing at us, and our politicians are helping them to do it. This must stop.
No one has any more right to my money than me, not even good old Uncle Sam, and certainly not some criminal or foreigner who contributes nothing to this country.
It's the electorate, stupid!
Robert L. DiStefano
Baltimore
Tax cuts, please
The axiom that anyone who ignores history is doomed to repeat its errors seems to be lost on the Clinton White House, particularly where a proposed middle class tax cut is concerned.
Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader-to-be Robert Dole also doesn't seem to be paying attention.
In responding to the Republican Contract with America, Mr. Clinton endorsed the idea "if we can find a way to pay for it." Mr. Dole, whom I used to admire, followed suit.
History shows that every general income tax cut in this half-century has triggered a period of economic growth. The same thing has happened in other developed countries.
The best and most recent example is the 1983 tax reduction, which was followed by an unprecedented 93 months of economic growth.
Annual Treasury receipts increased rapidly and produced the two lowest post-World War II deficits in fiscal years 1987 and 1988.
President Bush ended that when he agreed to the tax increases in the 1993 "budget deal," and look what happened to him in the 1992 election.
There is no reason to believe the same thing would not happen again if such a cut is passed. Get with it, guys and girls. History favors lower taxes.
Chuck Frainie
Woodlawn
History stamp
Japanese Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama and Foreign Minister Yohei Kono are pleased by a U.S. Postal Service decision to cancel issuing a stamp depicting the bombing of Japan. I'm not so pleased.
The Japanese government has yet to offer an apology for the barbaric acts that forced us into World War II.
The stamp was to show the mushroom clouds created by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Ironically, other stamps in the same series illustrate the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the invasion of the Aleutian Islands, the fall of Corregidor and the sinking of the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown.
Why is the U.S. administration being so apologetic toward Japan? Let history speak for itself.
Bill Brigerman
Baltimore
Shared guilt?
As citizens of Baltimore, none of us will disagree with The Sun's strong editorial, "McLean's Lenient Sentence," (Dec. 17).
As our city's former comptroller, third-highest ranking position in Baltimore's government, Mrs. McLean disobeyed one of the cardinal moral principles, "Thou shall not steal," an ethical code she made sure others obeyed.
She made an exception of herself, got caught and was punished, perhaps not as severely as some would want, but sufficiently so that she became a "broken woman."
And yet after she confessed and pleaded guilty for her shameful acts, most of us feel some degree of sympathy with Mrs. McLean.
xTC We imagine what we should feel if we were in her shoes, suffering endless embarrassments, financial difficulties, confusion of mind and accusatory fingers forever pointing at us the rest of our lives.
At the same time, we wonder how come the Board of Estimates and the sinecure City Council, whose president heads the board, allowed Ms. McLean, who as comptroller was also a member of the board, to wheel and deal freely and without the proper audits.
Should not they share equally in Mrs. McLean's guilt and punishment?
Frank Novak
Baltimore
Tenant responsibility in public housing
Some of those who reside in public housing at the expense of others feel they shouldn't be asked to take part in any type of work to improve their surroundings.
After all, they are receiving housing at free or subsidized rent, paid by those who have to clean their own alleys, sidewalks and pay for any repairs to their own living quarters.
Why would you want to have to take responsibility for such
things. You have for decades, if not generations, had all this done for you.
It's easy to expect others to do the work and pay to clean up the trash, the graffiti and vandalism that surrounds you.
Anna Warren spoke of being treated like slaves (News article, Dec. 10). I'm sorry, but the comparison is very wrong. Slaves did the work, all the work, for their keepers or masters and received little or nothing in return.
In this case, it's the masters or overseers who are paying for and doing the cleaning and repairing of the "slave quarters."
Another woman said that she was retired and planned to do no more work cleaning her building.
My answer to those who will not lift a hand to help themselves: If you are willing to live like you do, then don't complain about what surrounds you. You allow it, and by your remarks you are not willing to work to change it. Those of us that work for a living, or are "retired," come home and pick up the trash on our property.
We sweep our own alleys and gutters. If we do not keep our property in good shape, we are in violation of laws that are set up to protect communities and must fix it up.
If we do not, we are fined. This law should carry over into public housing.
The "Moving To Opportunity" plan that is proposed for those who live in public housing will simply carry over this type of "lack of responsibility" we are seeing now to other communities that will suffer.
If those people feel that they are owed something by society, instead of owing something to society, then such programs will only be de
stroying neighborhoods.
Moving those who feel this way will not change them. The new residence will only be subsidized and taken care of by dwindling tax dollars, as it is now. Lack of responsibility will only follow them.
There are those who do not fit the ideology of many public housing residents. Many streets in poor neighborhoods are kept clean and reflect the pride of their occupants.
These people should be congratulated and put into the spotlight as people who care and are willing to work to keep their communities neat and clean.
In this world there are takers and givers. It's obvious that the takers are not willing to give something back, to help themselves.
The problem we are facing is there are fewer givers, and the well is running dry.
It's time we givers got something for our money. Slavery was abolished over 200 years ago. Why allow it to resurface in the public housing of Baltimore?
Lois Munchel
Baltimore