Spectrum Analysis
Do we really want cost-benefit analysis to focus solely on short-term cost -- as it seems increasingly to do -- without consideration of benefit or of longer-term savings?
Mary O. Styrt
Baltimore
USF&G;'s Move
I applaud Andrew Gray's concern regarding USF&G;'s move from downtown and encourage his continued interest in the city (letter, Feb. 2).
Although a close reading of the reports in The Sun has provided the essential clues, I'm afraid most people just didn't get it. Perhaps The Sun could reprint and restate the full financial factors surrounding the move.
I do not believe USF&G; "decided it could no longer survive downtown" and "has fled the city center for the suburbs," as Mr. Gray has stated, and some of the news reports have implied. I believe a proper investigation and an accurate report thereof (or disclosure) would disclose the following scenario:
USF&G; has had financial problems since 1982. It has had underwriting losses every year since 1981. Perhaps for that reason it sold the landmark Baltimore office building, for a profit, one would hope.
One way to maximize the sale price for an office building is to present the buyer with nice fat long-term leases.
From what I read in The Sun, USF&G; obligated itself to pay something in the neighborhood of $50 per square foot, for at least a part of its lease. Having maximized the sale price, it now cannot afford the rent.
Interestingly, instead of renegotiating its lease, as so many others have done over the past several years, USF&G; has decided it must honor its lease, move out and sublet the property.
I do not believe it is appropriate for the mayor or the taxpayers to "help USF&G; find a way to avoid [the move]."
Mr. Gray's concerns should be directed at USF&G; management, the officers and directors of the company, past and present.
. Richard Piet
Baltimore
Wills Naive
Considering his usual intelligence, George Will's argument for term limits (Opinion * Commentary Feb. 9) is naive at best. Given the adverse consequences of liberal theories, we should look closely at conservative ones.
Handicapping elected officials does not automatically translate
to better government; more likely it would mean less authority by elected officials over government.
Once the novelty wore off, the candidates would be the product of ever more powerful parties, and they would likely strengthen the bureaucracy and industries they would move on to.
The high return of elected officials is viewed as a failure of the system. This is like saying atomic weapons are of little consequence because they have only been used twice. It is just natural for constituents to return their representatives.
Government is society's response to its limitations, and America has far greater problems then its government, which is often little more then a confused messenger.
John B. Merryman
Lutherville
Hunting Fees
It astounds me that you would publish an opinion article reflecting such total ignorance of the topic addressed as Eirik A. T. Blom's "Taxing Birdwatchers," Jan. 25.
Mr. Blom's characterization of the manner in which hunting and fishing license fees are used is a classic case of someone with strong views but little knowledge creating an inaccurate image of a reality total foreign to him.
Throughout the country, agencies that propagate fish, game birds or waterfowl for release for hunters fund that activity through separate stamps which must be purchased by those pursuing those species.
The vast majority of funds raised through basic hunting and fishing license fees, and in particular federal duck stamps, is used for administration, enforcement of all wildlife and fisheries protection laws (including those covering songbirds) and, most important, habitat protection.
Federal waterfowl stamp funds have paid for the nation's purchase and preservation of all of those refuges (such as
Blackwater) through which birders such as Mr. Blom happily hike to see eagles, herons, songbirds and thousands of wild waterfowl, untouched by human hands.
If Mr. Blom considers it harebrained to establish means of acquiring funds that can be directed specifically to preservation of the habitat that is essential for production of our beautiful and diverse avian fauna, then I wish him an exciting birding life of watching pigeons, starlings and house sparrows crowding each other at his bird feeder.
Providing funds for the preservation of habitat and enforcement of our wildlife protection laws should be a welcome responsibility of all those, both consumers and non-consumers, who treasure our natural heritage.
William A. Richkus
Catonsville
Stop Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood
Evidence is clear that although Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a private corporation bringing in $400 million annually, has a financial structure based upon sales of birth control devices, abortion services and some private contributions, its largest source of income is federal funding.
Our tax dollars are at work.
For years, PPFA has received approximately $30 million annually of our tax money from Title X funds.
And PPFA's regional affiliates are not doing badly either as they feed at the public trough. Information released by just one of them, Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Central Texas states that its 1993 income was $3,010,942, and 65 percent of that amount was from government funding.
I noticed recently the Clinton administration awarded Planned Parenthood another $294,390 of our tax money to assist in setting up an internal computer system. The money was a grant from the National Telecommunications Information Agency, part of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
As a taxpayer, I consider it strange that an independent corporation such as PPFA should receive money from American taxpayers to finance its operations. As a parent, I consider it frightening. Here's why.
There are many people who consider PPFA's work to be immoral; at odds with and destructive to traditional moral values in this country.
One could argue that PPFA provides some useful health care services on a nationwide basis and therefore deserves government money.
However, that argument doesn't hold water, since private hospitals and health care providers who do much more do not qualify for such funding.
If you, as a parent, are doubtful that PPFA's tax money should be terminated, consider this: the Birdville, Texas, school system recently issued a policy statement that school personnel must inform parents if a student is pregnant or planning an abortion.
But Planned Parenthood of North Texas' executive director immediately said, "We're prepared to go to court to challenge it. It violates a right to privacy for minors making reproductive decisions."
It may seem odd to most parents to hear that in Planned Parenthood's opinion their children have "a right to make reproductive decisions" without consultation or input from a parent. Not so to Planned Parenthood.
PPFA, for years, has been pushing this idea. In doing so, it continually comes between children and parents, undermining parental authority.
This is only the latest instance of how PPFA will do anything it can to keep parents in the dark and to influence the decisions children make.
It is common knowledge that PPFA has been the primary source of the highly questionable idea that it's OK for children to be sexually active as long as they use a condom, despite what their parents think or say.
And what a happy coincidence for PPFA: One of its major services is providing condoms to our children. For a price, of course.
Planned Parenthood's position on this and many other ideas is contrary to and destructive of the values of most American families, regardless of their religion or how they feel about abortion. Why, then, should PPFA continue to receive our tax dollars?
Parents should contact their congressman and senator requesting information regarding tax funds going to PPFA in various ways.
Then we should urge our legislators to cut off such funding by introducing legislation to repeal these programs immediately.
Anthony J. Sacco
Towson