Cap on Benefits
I am writing in response to The Sun's editorial, "Perot's Deficit-Reduction Plan" July 27. The editorial talks about attacking entitlement plans such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and cost of living increases. The writer advocates a cap on these entitlement programs.
This would take away from those who can afford it the least. According to the Hagerstown Herald-Mail, one percent of the families in this country possess 90 percent of the wealth. Does The Sun approve of taking more from those who possess 10 percent of the wealth?
Perhaps the writer needs to spend time with the elderly who are struggling, who have lost their homes and those whose savings are at risk due to high medical costs. The Sun is looking in the wrong places to balance the budget.
It seems obvious that the middle-class and the poor are hurting the most in this country. If The Sun's ideas are endorsed, these individuals will continue to decline. If the middle-class and the poor decline, the country will continue to deteriorate.
As a disabled, retired, young Marylander, I would like to comment on the letter "Teaching Abortion," in The Sun (July 18), written eloquently by Karen A. Korzick, M.D.
Let's face the pro-choice issue directly in the forefront and ask ourselves: Which choice do we favor? Indeed, as Dr. Korzick stated, most people agree with the right of a woman to choose whether or not to become pregnant, or how many children she chooses to bear. But these choices should be made before an intelligent woman decides to conceive a child.
There now exists more, safer, convenient and effective means of contraception than at any point in history. Let's make every attempt to stress abstinence to the young and unmarried, yet make certain that all people who cry out "pro-choice" be aware that everyone now has a choice whether or not to conceive.
The politicians who cry out that every woman should choose what she wants done with her body only exemplify their ignorance -- for the sake of feminist votes. They purposefully choose to ignore that after conception, from a medical standpoint, there are two bodies -- the mother and conceived child.
Politicians need to be bold enough to say to women: "Yes, you ought to have the power to choose, but the choice must be whether or not to conceive, and never whether or not to terminate unborn life."
How much do we value life? Is one life -- due to age, ability, economic cost -- more valuable than any other life? Once we open the door to the expendability of life for any reasons, every life is cheapened. And inevitably, society suffers the burden where rights are spoken of only as they increase the powers of the strong and able who then choose to destroy the rights and lives of the innocent and disabled.
Arthur C. Douglas Jr.
Your editorial regarding "HCFA's Politically Correct Location" (Aug. 15) is not entirely correct and missed the boat on several important points. It also smacks of sour grapes.
Baltimore City was not "cavalierly ignored" by the administration. Baltimore County was not selected on the basis of politics -- as implied by your editorial.
If anything, most Health Care Financing Administration employees felt the city site would be selected because of politics and unfair advantages such as a glossy brochure touting the benefits of a city work site that was distributed desk-to-desk. And what did Baltimore County distribute? A one-page mimeographed sheet.
To imply that the city was cheated out of jobs because of politics shows a lack of understanding of the issues. You are crying "sour grapes" for the city, but should be shouting "Yippee" -- not for the county, not even for the employees -- but for the beneficiaries.
HCFA is the federal agency which administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The site should have been selected, as it was, on the basis of which site better serves the beneficiaries of Medicare and the recipients of Medicaid.
HCFA's loyal, faithful and hard-working employees will continue to work where they have been working since the inception of HCFA. They will continue to provide service to the American people at the location which GSA deemed the correct one for a number of reasons: fiscal, financial and environmental -- not because it was "politically correct." That is what you should have emphasized.
Mayer D. Zimmerman
I must admit that sometimes your editorials bewilder me. On the one hand, The Sun's editors have consistently argued for gun control, and in the process have ridiculed individuals and organizations that have used the U.S. Constitution as their argument against such an infringement.