Certainly every candidate has a downside, but the informed voter doesn't want to hear about rumor or past history that doesn't relate to how a candidate or incumbent will perform a job.
The ideal leader tells us how he will take us into the future. A candidate with positive ideas and clearly intelligent aspirations for bettering the community as a whole is the ideal hopeful.
In this past primary, two races tested this theory. The Hattery-Byron and Clinton-Tsongas races show that negative ad campaigns don't really work.
Justin M. Mascari
I disagree with the position of The Sun that in order to ameliorate Baltimore County's financial problems, vital nursing services should be denied children in Baltimore county non-public schools. We in non-public schools recognize the urgency of the county's financial situation, yet we object, on moral and ethical grounds, to an attempt to balance the budget by jeopardizing the health and safety of children.
In addition, we resist efforts to penalize non-public school parents further. As tax-paying citizens, they already pay for the nursing service as well as support the public schools with their tax dollars.
Non-public schools in Baltimore County make a significant financial contribution to the county. Catholic schools alone save the county approximately $40 million yearly by educating 8,000 of its citizens.
Should only 1 percent of students from Catholic schools transfer into the public system, the savings anticipated by cutting nursing services to non-public schools would be lost. Such a transfer is likely if tuition costs have to rise due to non-public schools absorbing this additional cost.
In closing, the non-public schools, as all other constituencies in Baltimore County, will continue contributing generously to assure government solvency. However, doing so at the expense of children is not acceptable to us either now or in the future.
Lawrence S. Callahan
The writer is superintendent of Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Baltimore.
Come November, given the choice of Bill Clinton or George Bush, I will vote for neither.
My primary ballot went to Paul Tsongas, and for the first time in over 20 years I felt enthusiastic about an election.
For too many recent elections I have voted for the guy I disliked the least. Well, no more. I now know there is someone better out there, and until the power brokers decide to provide me the opportunity to help elect one I'll hang on to my vote.
This is coming from someone who has never missed a presidential election. I don't think I am alone. Would someone care to count us?
What a System
Daniel S. Greenberg's March 17 article, "Paperwork Costs: A Hidden Boom in Medical Bills," is certainly provocative. It is unlikely that any private physician in the United States would disagree with the premise that medical billing is chaotic, confusing, time consuming and overly expensive to everyone.
However, Mr. Greenberg proceeds from there to an indirect recommendation for a National Health Service similar to the Canadian system. Unfortunately, this simplistic reasoning has omitted a large number of variables about the Canadian Health System, many of which are very disturbing.
In addition, he omits that by far the most confusing billing system ever foisted on American physicians is the new Medicare billing system. It has caused an almost unbelievable maelstrom in the medical community. I find it hard to believe that a system that runs Medicare could possibly run the entire health care system.
Daniel P. Harley, M.D.
I am outraged that I find myself in the role of an apologist for the actions of our House of Representatives. I teach high school sophomores United States government. My goal is to give them pride in our unique form of government and help to make them proud that they are Americans. Then we discuss the antics of the House of Representatives.
Our text teaches that an essential element of our representative government is that the representatives must be accountable to the people for their actions. What can be further from the truth?
The House leadership and many of its members show contempt for American citizens when they try to cover up the House banking scandal by refusing to make public the names of hundreds of its members who may have unethically taken
advantage of one of the special "perks" not available to ordinary citizens. They flaunt their authority by exempting themselves from laws binding to ordinary citizens. Who do these public servants of the people think they are?
In the United States, our government rests upon the concept of popular sovereignty. Government acts only with the consent of the governed. I'm not so sure we consent to their arrogant behavior. How many House members would be willing to face my classes and justify that body's corruption? I can't.