Editor: Ron Brown, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, was recently quoted as describing the electorate as the "upper crust" (the Republicans,) and "the rest of us," (Democrats).
The reader must assume the former means the rich and the latter the nonrich. Do Mr. Brown and the congressional Democrats consider themselves non-rich?
Almost all of the thousands of special interest groups representing every segment of our society are rich.
For they are the ones that fund the political action committees that give money 82 percent of the time to the incumbent candidates.
And who are most of the incumbents? Why, the Democrats of course, who have held the majority in the House for most of the years since 1930.
Mr. Brown, therefore, represents the political "upper crust."
Craig N. Schmall.
Power to People
Editor: Once upon a time we were a nation undivided -- ''We the people'' was inherent to us all.
Now as a nation, we find ourselves divided by the ever-widening chasm of politics, economics and social mores. We seem unwilling to accept responsibility for our own well-being as a country. We want all the comforts but are not resigned to the fact you cannot get something for nothing and you get what you pay for. We vote our representatives into office on a single issue and then expect them to agree with all our points of view.
Taxes. There I said it! We cannot expect our country to grow and be healthy without taxes. We as a nation have set high standards and have great expectations. We cannot forgive $6.7 billion in debts and not pay for it. When you don't have money in the bank you can't pay your bills.
And finally, might I suggest if we the people want a balanced budget, we look for the unnecessary expenses of our rank and file office holders, starting with the president and right on down the line to our local government. Make them accountable. Demand more scrutiny of how our (the taxpayers') money is spent. And again, do not vote on a single issue but rather on issues. Restore control to the people, not the politicians.
Nancy J. Meyers.
Editor: Your article informing the public that our tax-supported schools are now dispensing birth control devices to teen-agers is hTC appalling. In essence we are giving license to irresponsible and potentially destructive behavior.
How can we expect our young people to choose between right and wrong when the adults can't hold the line at what is right. For a long time there were "safe" filter-tip cigarettes and other gimmicks to get people to stop or cut down on smoking. Now we're saying smoking is harmful and are not tolerating it, in many cases.
Why can't the school system say sexual union is wrong outside of a marriage relationship? What a depressing thought for a parent that if a child chooses the wrong path, those in authority will supply him or her with a "safe" mode of following that path. No one will stand up and say to the youngster: "I will help you do better, but I will not aid and abet your poor choice."
Editor: I have seen skyscrapers erected in New York on busy Fifth Avenue with no interference to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The sidewalks had been kept open by building overhead bridgework.
In Towson, the construction of a relatively small complex has resulted in the closing of the adjoining sidewalk and one-half of one of the busiest streets in Towson -- Pennsylvania Avenue.
Cars, buses and pedestrians are inconvenienced by usurping these public facilities. Why?
R. Manfred Kwasnik.
Missed the Point
Editor: This is in response to a letter from Arnold Bernstein on Oct. 17, in which he painstakingly and archly defends the exclusion of women from clinical trials of new medicines because the monthly variability of their hormonal balance might ''louse up the whole study.'' All his facts are valid, and he missed the point. It is because of the differences between men and women that some are concerned that results of medications on women's bodies might differ, and that this is not being tested sufficiently.
More on 'Animals'
Editor: Garland L. Thompson, in his November 1, 1990 column, quoted remarks by me in a previous letter, completely out of context to the intent of my letter as a whole. I believe fully in equality for all Americans. I believe (and stated) that good people who obey laws, are living in ghettos, surrounded by "black animals." I referenced, also, "white animals." I condemned David Dukes and all those who polarize, white or black. I said to Mr. Thompson he was such a polarizer.
I indicated we cannot solve our nation's problems in this fashion. I said blacks and whites had lots of problems to own up to. I said it was a two-way street. I tried to help Mr. Thompson by suggesting many white Americans, being of immigrant ancestors, had a less well-rooted sense of the outrage of slavery, and his apologetic tactics weren't reaching these needed supporters.