Taxing PensionersWhile I appreciate the need to reduce the...


February 18, 1993

Taxing Pensioners

While I appreciate the need to reduce the deficit, I am appalled at some of the suggestions that are surfacing from the administration and seem to be embraced by many members of Congress.

Specially, the biggest offender in my judgment is the suggestion that Social Security recipients whose income is greater than $25,000 a year ($32,000 for a couple) have 85 percent of their Social Security benefits taxed instead of the present 50 percent.

Most such couples can hardly be considered affluent. But these are the "wealthy" Social Security couples whose taxes will be increased under this suggested proposal.

It is grossly unfair to increase the tax of the non-affluent end of the middle class by such a huge amount.

Social Security recipients of only modest income who are trying to spend the remaining years of their lives with a modicum of pride and contentment should not be singled out as a special group for a tax increase.

Sanford Hershfield


1 for 2 for 1

In the history of the world, have any three words struck more fear into the hearts of Neanderthal thinkers than "Hillary Rodham Clinton"?

To hear the battle cries of "concerned" citizens and opinion pushers, one would think that by virtue of being a woman and married to the president, a person should be automatically declared brain dead. The very most she should be allowed to do is change the White House china pattern.

Hillary Clinton is not an ogre. Surprise! Surprise! Women have been given (taken) the right to think.

To suggest that she rode her husband's coattails to the top is insulting. Hillary Rodham would have gotten to the top no matter what her last name was. She may have just been denied the attorney general's position because of that name.

This is not some homemaker or has-been actress assigned to a job beyond her capabilities. She is a reputable and noteworthy attorney more than ready to handle this assignment.

Had President Clinton appointed as health care czar some man (or woman) from the business world to oversee the reshaping of the health care system, who would be complaining?

Maybe Clinton appointed someone he himself had influence over and not the other way around? Who can say that he would not remove his wife from her position if she did not perform up to standards?

Can she be afforded the common sense to realize her limitations and step down if she felt she was ineffective? Neither one will forget who is president.

Well, I am one American who definitely voted for the "two for one" ticket. I voted for Hillary's husband. Anyone intelligent enough to spot this jewel, treat her like the equal that she is, and not be intimidated by her would definitely get my vote any time, any place.

Alberta E. Brown


Relative Rankings

In your Jan. 17 edition, you ran an article dealing with the ratio of students to non-instructional staff in schools around the state. I certainly applaud the effort but take issue with the research.

Your comparison dealt with all non-instructional staff without regard to the differences in the jurisdictions.

Your data showed that Prince George's County had a relatively high ratio of non-instructional staff to students, but failed to note that we have the largest school system in the state, that it is spread out over 500 square miles and that we are under a court-ordered busing decree. The result of these three factors is that we run a very large fleet of buses.

If school bus drivers are subtracted from the equation for all jurisdictions, we actually have the lowest ratio of administrative staff per student for the five largest jurisdictions in the state and rank seventh among the eight jurisdictions mentioned in your article.

Major R. Riddick Jr.

Upper Marlboro

The writer is Prince George's County's chief administrative officer.

Poor Foundations

Why does the Leaning Tower of Pisa lean? Because its foundations were not properly laid.

Why are so many children growing up to become delinquent and criminals? There are many reasons, but an important one is that the foundations to their lives are not being properly laid.

Nature has contrived many ways of encouraging the formation of early infant attachment, which is the taproot that nourishes all later development -- emotional, social, physical and intellectual.

In the first few months of life, a baby sees best between 7 and 12 inches -- about the distance between a feeding infant and a parent's face. This time of physical proximity and connection is critical.

In many intricate and subtle ways, the relationship between parents and baby works to establish the basis of all later relationships in school and in life.

The infant's concept of self and world view are all formed within the first month of life. Dr. T. Berry Brazelton says that he can predict whether a child is going to succeed or fail in life at eight months of age.

I am writing all of this because I am deeply concerned about your editorial in The Sun (Feb. 3) against the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.