Little generosity in Bush's budget

The column "Treatment, not talk" (Opinion

Commentary, Feb. 3) expresses the logical view that President Bush's "personal struggles against alcohol addiction" would lead him to advocate "generous and caring policies."

Unfortunately, as the column points out, that hasn't been Mr. Bush's record.

To understand this point, you need only turn to page three of the same paper to learn of Mr. Bush's proposed 2009 budget, which squeezes funding for education, health, housing and anti-poverty programs while maintaining tax cuts for big business and the wealthy ("President's budget comes under fire," Feb. 3).

Or go to the paper from the day before and read "New rules could disrupt services to poor, panel told" (Feb. 2) an article about new federal regulations, published Dec. 3, which become effective March 3 and could disrupt medical and social services to as many as 200,000 poor adults and children in Maryland alone.

Of course, there were many articles about unarmored Humvees and parents buying their children serving in Iraq and Afghanistan body armor because Mr. Bush's administration couldn't provide appropriate supplies for the troops he sent into harm's way.

All of this while the administration was ravaging environmental, consumer and occupational safety regulations and giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and the biggest businesses.

Tim Sharman

Baltimore

Unnatural wheels spoil quiet places

In her column "Natural wheels" (Opinion

Commentary, Feb. 4), Katrina Ramser claims that "recreational four-wheeling can be compatible with environmental sensitivity." It isn't.

Unnecessarily driving to and through forests and wilderness areas wastes gas and contributes to pollution and global warming, not to mention disturbing the peace and quiet of those who hike, bike or camp and creating unnatural conditions for the animals who live in these places.

None of this has even the slightest relationship to "environmental sensitivity."

It's about the selfish pleasure-seeking of the drivers.

Craig Muller

Baltimore

Killings underscore the danger of guns

So now a young man who had almost made Eagle Scout is charged with murdering his parents and brothers. And we -- as a culture -- have yet to question why we are so enamored of guns, or to do anything to lessen the ongoing slaughter, not just in the inner cities but also in the suburbs ("A suspect, few clues," Feb. 5).

How can this be?

If there had not been a gun in that family's home, does anyone imagine that the alleged shooter, Nicholas Browning, would have, say, stabbed those four people with a knife?

We know that a gun gives a huge feeling of power, and that it can also give someone the ability to distance himself from the violent act because he does not have to make physical, human contact.

We can say "yes" to rifles for hunting but we can also -- we must -- say "no" to guns made and bought for the express purpose of hurting people.

Elizabeth DuVerlie

Baltimore

If the tragic murders of the Cockeysville family aren't an argument for banning guns, I don't know what is.

What if the young man who allegedly shot his family hadn't had access to a gun?

Maybe he would have gone home and yelled at his parents, thrown things, hit somebody.

But that way a moment of rage might not have turned into a lifetime of tragedy.

Rosie Behr

Baltimore