Editor: I enjoyed Peter Osterlund's April 28 article on the Social Security tax cut debate, but feel compelled to correct a mistake in the table that accompanied the piece.
The table sought to compare Social Security taxes under the tax cut proposal and under the present scheme for workers with various levels of earnings.
It showed that workers with annual earnings of $25,000 and $50,000 would get a tax cut, while those with earnings of $75,000 and $100,000 per year would see their Social Security taxes increase. This is incorrect. In fact, the proposal would result in a Social Security tax cut for all workers.
#Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
The writer is a Democratic Senator from New York State.
Editor: The editorial in The Sun of May 11, regarding Towson State student's disregard of commonly accepted standards of decent human conduct, struck home to me. I live in Towson, where much of the disturbances take place -- not only on campus, but in houses where students rent accommodations outside the dorms.
There are some things the university officials could do to call attention to the need for these off-campus residents to be considerate of neighborhood environments. For instance, just two houses from mine there are two properties owned by an absentee landlord who rents to many more students than the number the law sets for non-related renters in the same house.
In my case, these students have been almost ideal neighbors -- quiet, well-behaved and as neat as one could expect in a house the landlord is letting fall to pieces. The houses are a disgrace in an otherwise attractive area of resident homeowners. Gutters are falling off, paint peeling, porches sagging. There is no excuse for anyone renting these tenements to students or to anyone else, for that matter.
On the other hand, I have friends and relatives in Towson who are constantly troubled by unsupervised students. One of these friends has been awakened and kept awake until 3 a.m. by a group of male students who brawl and play loud music, not just occasionally but frequently. Several of those living nearby have had to call the police three times in one night.
It is a mystery to me that the police have to be called more than once before they respond. My friend and another neighbor have visited the owners at least twice. The owners live just two doors away from the noise, but they contend that they cannot hear it. When I suggested that my friends phone the owners at night, at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. when they are being disturbed, they said the owners had an unlisted phone number.
I suggest that the university should be informed of the names of students who are creating disturbances and that the police use more stringent measures to stop this behavior. The landlord is, after all, responsible for his property. The police are duty-bound to enforce the peace.
Editor: Why are elections held on Tuesdays? Wouldn't Sundays be more convenient?
Since voters must cast their ballots in their home districts, it is often difficult for those who work elsewhere to get to the polling place in time to vote. Or if they do make the effort to vote before or after work, there are likely to be longer lines than at other times of the day.
Other countries routinely hold elections on Sundays. Why can't we?
Marjorie C. Thomas.
Editor: On May 5, Kay Withers, writing for The Sun's Perspective section, belittled the Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791 as part of Polish nostalgia for a ''glorious past that never was.''
The 1791 Polish Constitution, Europe's first written constitution, was a valiant effort at constructing an effective governmental scheme. It was Poland's response to the First Partition by its unfriendly despotic neighbors.
It recognized separation of governmental powers and proposed
a governmental form emulating the British model.
True, the 1791 Constitution was never a document of governance because Poland was subjugated by force and partitioned off the world map.
It was, however, the Bill of Rights of the Polish tradition, the RTC embodiment of much that was enlightened and progressive in Poland's past.
For more than a century, it was the rallying cry for restoration of the Polish nation-state.
Ms. Withers seems particularly peeved that the 1791 Polish Constitution ''enshrined Roman Catholicism as the 'ruling religion,' renunciation of which was forbidden.''
Ms. Withers quotes from the 1791 Constitution's Article I, but she neglects to recite or recognize the remainder of the article which stated, ''but as the same holy religion commands us to love our neighbors, we therefore owe to all people of whatever persuasion, peace in matters of faith and the protection of government; consequently we assure, to all persuasions and religions, freedom and liberty, according to the laws of the country.''