The World Almanac informs us that the world population is over 5.2 billion. Famine takes the lives of about 15 million people each year.
Unless the United Nations adopts a population control program, ecological erosion will destroy tropical forests, marine environment and the atmosphere.
There are not enough resources to support the population explosion. If we continue to ignore this most pressing problem the next generation may self-destruct.
Democrats in Congress are at fault
Republican whip Newt Gingrich,R-Ga., has said that Senate majority leader George Mitchell, D-Maine, "gets up every morning thinking, 'How can I defeat George Bush today?' "
This is the epitome of obstructionism in the federal legislative process. Today the public outcry seems to be for change, any kind of change. Perhaps the most productive change would be to replace the Senate majority leader and his irresponsible way of thinking.
In 1989, Mr. Mitchell led a filibuster against a capital gains tax cut. This proposal was sponsored by a Republican administration, passed by a Democratic House of Representatives and was favorably supported by 51 senators.
However, Mr. Mitchell chose to use the filibuster to vanquish the measure because this meant a defeat of George Bush. To heck with the American public! Mr. Mitchell had his victory, and, consequently, the Americans had a recession.
In 1990, Mr. Mitchell and his cronies forced an administration, engaged in war, to raise taxes in order to get a budget passed. Shortly after this, real signs of a recession appeared. Did Mr. Mitchell care if his actions caused a recession? After all, this made President Bush look bad.
The real importance of the 1992 election lies in the changing of the leadership of Congress, not in the changing of the presidency.
I urge every American to vote for change, but for a change in Congress. Let's elect some serious legislators who are less concerned with partisan politics than they are in passing sorely needed laws to keep this country running as it should.
Phyllis A. Waidner
The high cost of health care is leading this country down the path of economic ruin.
Some of the ways being used to control the runaway cost of health care include shorter hospital stays, greater use of outpatient surgery, second opinions, etc.
Despite these "innovative" -- and, at times, very questionable -- ideas, the cost of health care is running at a pace that is triple the inflation rate.
How, then, do we control health care costs?
Until we can somehow control greed in the medical field, we will not control health care costs.
I do not mean to imply that all those involved in the field of medicine are greedy. However, there are enough out there whose greed through fraud, abuse and exorbitant and unjustified fees is making a very significant contribution to the problem.
Rich got richer
After almost four years of President Bush's broken promises, of lack of vision, of fumbling and confusion, millions of our citizens have lost their jobs, their homes, their families, their self-esteem.
Fright, frustration and demoralization are their daily diet as they walk the streets seeking jobs that are not to be found.
When Mr. Bush promised a "kinder and gentler nation," we thought he was speaking to us.
He has enriched the rich by being kinder and gentler to the vested interests of this nation who now fear a new occupant in the White House who will refuse to dance to their every tune.
They fear that a change in leadership will force them to pay their share of the taxes that now heavily burden our average citizens . . .
After almost four years of lengthening the bread lines and increasing the homeless and ignoring those who built this nation, Mr. Bush now has the gall to beg us to trust him for four more years to enable him to finish his job . . .
PTC Leon Peace Ried
Your July 28 editorial, "Love in the air," misses some critical points about the "engagement" of British Airways to USAir, including the legal impediments and its anti-competitive nature.
The "engagement" is nothing less than an illegal partnership. For more than 30 years, the Federal Aviation Act has forbidden any foreign interest from owning or controlling a U.S. airline.
U.S. law is clear: U.S. airlines must be under U.S. control. The British Airways/USAir deal fails to meet that crucial legal test.
You acknowledge this transaction to be a de facto merger. What you overlook is that it would be the first such merger of its kind, a takeover prohibited by the financial and voting power that British Airways would wield over USAir.
Worse yet, perhaps, is that British Airways is trying to achieve what it cannot win on a level playing field: a degree of market access in the United States that U.S. carriers have been systematically denied in Britain.