Editor: I feel as if I am watching a terrible hoax being played on the American people. I don't know if the hoax itself is more horrifying than the fact that the press and people have swallowed it so easily. We watched a man in a golf cart on vacation say he was calling up troops and sending them to the Middle East for moralistic reasons. How can naked greed be so obscure to so many? This country is still paying for the crime of Vietnam and will continue to pay with the scarred lives of so many men and women.
I can not equate the desire to control the world's supply of oil with the lives of my sons and daughters.
Mary S. Jameson.
Editor: Your recent editorial, so critical of the attempt of the Anne Arundel Taxpayers for Responsive Government to limit property taxes by means of a referendum, failed to take note that this form of taxation is unfair and actually contrary to American ideals.
A part of the Great American Dream is to own one's home. Rather than imposing extortionate taxes on private homes, government ought to be doing something to encourage homeownership. Heavier and heavier property taxes make continued ownership for many citizens difficult. Such taxation is especially hard on great many retirees living on fixed incomes.
The fact that the state tax assessors make it unnecessary for the county executive and council to raise property tax rates does not escape public notice. Something must be done by the General Assembly to correct this unacceptable system. Homeowners are not interested in selling their homes to make a profit that will be sharply reduced by capital gains taxes. Most of us built our homes to live in and enjoy, then pass along to our heirs.
Who Lost Kuwait?
Editor: Re: your editorial of September 20, "Who Lost Kuwait?" Pardon me, but I thought ours was a democracy. You take the Democrats in Congress to task for pointing out that the Bush administration has abetted Saddam Hussein's aggression and probably made the invasion of Kuwait more likely. You do not deny that this is true, but only criticize the Democrats for pointing it out, claiming that they should not do so, because you ". . . want this country united as war threatens."
The suppression of honest debate on such a crucial foreign policy issue is more likely to cause war than to prevent it. The Democrats, and those Republicans courageous enough to buck administration pressure, are only performing their constitutional duty in exposing the administration's policy for what it is likely to lead to: the tragic wasting of precious American blood and the unforgivable squandering of limited American resources to prop up Middle Eastern regimes which are anti-democratic at best.
Consider the record:
* This is the same George Bush who, as vice president, extolled the virtues of Ferdinand Marcos, publicly toasting the latter by proclaiming, "We love your democracy";
* This is the same George Bush who, as director of the CIA, continued to authorize substantial aid to Manuel Noriega in spite of irrefutable evidence that the dictator was deeply involved in drug traffic;
* This is the same President George Bush who secretly sent his highest diplomatic emissary to praise the Chinese soon after they had run over their own young people with tanks, students whose only crime had been a public demonstration of a wish for democracy.
Such an abysmal record of consistent blunders cries out for congressional criticism and public protest. Why is it so difficult for The Sun to see what is so clear? For years George Bush and the Republicans have urged the American people on toward greater energy profligacy, while castigating those, like Jimmy Carter, who urged conservation and energy alternatives.
It is no surprise that the president equates the protection of oil company profits with "our way of life." What is surprising is that a once-proud and independent paper like The Sun should be so little concerned about the possibly disastrous loss of American life as to endorse a see-no-evil, speak-no-evil editorial policy.
Editor: When I read Paul West's recent article, ''American's . . . resent politicians,'' which told of a Times Mirror poll that reported ''57 percent (of the electorate) believes it has no say in what government does,'' I was amused that the article was in The Sun.
Just recently you editorialized that Dennis Rasmussen ought to oppose the request of 10,000 Baltimore County voters to place a question on the ballot in October to limit and roll back of property-tax assessment rates. Mr. Rasmussen followed your advice.
From my school days, I seem to remember some historical American document that says something like . . . ''government by the people and for the people.''
How can The Sun, Mr. Rasmussen believe they have more wisdom than the combined electorate of the county?
If the issue is bad for the people, will the people not soundly defeat the issue?