More consumption won't aid economy
Why is no one complaining that the stimulus package will merely cause a small shot of immediate excess consumption ("Congress approves plan to stimulate economy," Feb. 8)?
Some people will pay off bills with their tax rebate, but others will rush to the store to buy that TV they want or those shoes or some other consumer items.
Many of those items are imported, and thus much of the stimulus money will be exported. How will that stimulate our economy? Perhaps this bill should be called the "China Stimulus Package."
What happened to the old-fashioned approach to economic stimulus, in which we invested in skilled workers creating improved infrastructure?
This puts money into the economy, creates jobs and helps strengthen the economy for the present and the future.
Today's stimulus will be a terrible waste of spending.
Indeed, the tightening credit and weakening dollar that accompany every big surge in deficit spending will almost certainly mean that this stimulus will weaken our economy in the long run.
Omar Siddique
Ellicott City
Stimulus monies may end up overseas
Our leaders have determined that our economy needs a boost ("Congress approves plan to stimulate economy," Feb. 8). But I have a problem understanding just whose economy will be boosted by this tax rebate.
If U.S. citizens spend their tax refunds on manufactured products - big-screen TVs, digital cameras, clothing, etc. - the majority of the money will go to economies of countries other than the United States, those where these manufactured goods are made.
We can't even buy gas with our rebate money without having many of the dollars go to foreign nations.
Perhaps our government could offer suggestions on how we could spend the money and keep most of it in our economy, not to the economies of our competitors.
Leonard J. Popa
Pasadena
Superdelegates need to value public will
References to the superdelegates in the Democratic presidential nomination process remind us that some of Maryland's elected officials may ignore the choice of the voters in our state, which could effectively overturn the decision of the people ("Maryland's turn," Feb. 11).
If the superdelegate system was set up to protect against voters choosing a weak nominee, it has no application to this year's Democratic primary. Neither Sen. Barack Obama nor Sen. Hillary Clinton would spell doom for the party in November.
Given two strong candidates, the superdelegates have no business ignoring the votes of their constituents.
If Gov. Martin O'Malley and Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, for example, want to campaign on behalf of Mrs. Clinton, that's their choice as regular citizens.
But if Mr. Obama wins today, as has been widely predicted, these leaders need to get in line with Maryland Democrats when it comes to their role as superdelegates.
Jeremy Skinner
Baltimore
A national primary is more equitable
If indeed all Americans are created equal, why am I feeling disenfranchised heading into Maryland's primary ("Clinton asks allies' help," Feb. 11)?
The equitable process would be to hold all primaries and caucuses on the same day across the nation.
That way, every citizen would have an equal opportunity to vote for the candidate of his or her choice before many of them are winnowed out by earlier voters.
Celeste H. Breitenbach
Parkville
Referendum wrong way to protect rights
Friday's article about the potential for gay-rights opponents to petition to referendum any law passed protecting same-sex couples suggested that "gay-marriage proponents would welcome a referendum" ("Gay-marriage opposition is stepped up," Feb. 8).
I would like to clarify that nothing in my comments should be interpreted as welcoming such a referendum.
The position of Equality Maryland is that civil rights should never be put before voters.
Carrie Evans
Silver Spring
The writer is policy director for Equality Maryland.
Hairston overlooks value of the arts
I take issue with Baltimore County school board President JoAnn C. Murphy's comments that county schools Superintendent Joe A. Hairston "doesn't throw away children" ("Schools extend chief's pact," Feb. 6).
He throws them away every day through his policies that prevent children's access to sequential programs of arts education in order to raise math and reading scores.
He ignores research that shows that arts education programs improve the scores of all students, especially low-achieving students, and help keep children in school.
Mr. Hairston usually points to the Carver School of Technology as proof of his belief in arts education, a school that excels in the visual arts but has very few offerings in music.
I have a question for Mr. Hairston: What about the students in the other Baltimore County schools?
Richard A. Disharoon
Parkville
The writer is vice chairman of the board of the Arts Education in Maryland Schools Alliance.
It's right to fight for school funding
A big bow to The Sun for the front-page picture ("Demanding money for Md. schools," Feb. 7) and the article "25 education protesters detained" (Feb. 7) about high school students protesting education-funding cuts.
A bigger bow to Sun photographer Glenn Fawcett for capturing the entire protest perfectly.
And a hallelujah to the 25 students and their supporters for bringing a very important message to our governor and the people of Maryland.
William Almquist
Baltimore
Fuel cells alone can't create energy
The writer of the letter "Turbines' promise is way overblown" (Feb. 4) wants to solve the nation's energy problems with fuel cells.
Is he aware that fuel cells use hydrogen as fuel to reduce their carbon footprint, and that this hydrogen is usually produced by electrolysis of water?
That process uses a lot of electricity; it is not particularly efficient.
Where will the electricity come from to produce all that hydrogen without the power plants, wind farms, nuclear reactors, etc., that are now being proposed to resolve our energy crisis?
Since energy can be neither created nor destroyed (according to the first law of thermodynamics) it will always be necessary to use power generators to convert existing potential energy into usable forms of power such as electricity.
The bottom line is that the more energy we use, the more generators will be needed, including wind farms and other devices to convert natural forces into electricity.
Clarence A. Broomfield
Jarrettsville
The writer is a biochemist.