Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, May 23, 1994 TAG: 9405230097
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
His comments are much without common reasoning and consideration for legal aspects of the case, and his conclusions are without regard for right vs. wrong.
Garland states that he's never believed the retirees have a very good case because they never pointed to the existence of an ``obscure'' federal statute (passed in 1942), only discovered 40 years later. How were federal employees supposed to know of this law, and how can he apparently condone an illegal act that continued for such a long time? Were federal employees supposed to police the Department of Taxation's actions in Richmond? We know what would have happened if we'd refused to pay this tax.
He implies the settlement of 50 cents on the dollar suggested by the attorney general was fair, and that retirees should have jumped at this. Garland didn't consider that most retirees paid illegal taxes for a period completely spanning their retirement. I estimate that I've contributed approximately $20,000 to Virginia in illegal taxes. The average retiree has probably paid more. It's only due to the statute of limitations that Virginia can avoid refunds for all except three years, plus the year last filed. Retirees aren't asking for billions of dollars they were illegally taxed prior to March 28, 1989. They're only asking for that which is legally theirs.
I feel, as I think most retirees do (regardless of Garland's contention), that the state is morally and legally obligated to pay the amount in full, plus interest. Let's do it in a manner that's right, instead of the way some politicians would like to see it - more dirt swept under the rug.
This has nothing to do with the amount of federal retirees' current pensions, as Garland implies. It has nothing to do with the state's fiscal predicament or Virginia residents who aren't affected. It's simply a matter of doing what's legally and morally correct.
CALVIN C. KNOTTS
DALEVILLE
Better not hesitate to protest routing
I WAS very pleased to read in staff writer Stephen Foster's May 5 news article (``Vocal crusade helps, highway official says'') a much-needed clarification on Interstate 73.
Secretary of Transportation Robert Martinez stated in the article that Congress must first decide where it thinks the highway should go. If it goes along with the state's recommendation, the State Transportation Department will begin studying route possibilities within the 5-mile swath that's already been laid down. It's then that opponents will have their official forum in which to speak.
Most of us on Bent Mountain aren't just concerned about this road coming through our back yard. We're concerned about its impact on the entire Bent Mountain community, which is all within the 5-mile swath. Are we still being ``prematurely frantic''? We cannot preserve our community as we know it today by waiting until after the fact to voice our concerns in an ``official'' forum.
PAULA M. BITTINGER
BENT MOUNTAIN
A grass fire at the civic center
ON APRIL 29, the Roanoke Firefighters Association provided the area with a fantastic concert by Charlie Daniels. This great entertainer figuratively set the Roanoke Civic Center on fire. Unfortunately, the situation was also literal.
At the beginning of the show, concert-goers were told they couldn't smoke in the coliseum. Did that do any good, and were there security efforts to stop this? No way! To make matters worse, it wasn't normal cigarettes being smoked. I heard of friends who left once they realized marijuana was being smoked. It's a shame a family concert had to be ruined in this way.
Daniels abhors this. He speaks out, without shame, on many subjects, including what should be done with those who rape and molest. Many are using drugs when this happens.
Why can't everyone abide by the civic center's policies? Is this too much to ask? Something needs to be done. Maybe officials need to wake up and see what's happening.
BRIAN D. BOWMAN
ROANOKE
Area congressmen kept their oath
THE ``Briefly Put'' on the May 7 Opinion page (``In search of safety'') invites Reps. Goodlatte and Payne to join Rep. Boucher in the Roanoke Times & World-News so-called ``hall of shame.'' This newspaper, just like Fearless Leader-Big Brother ``Billy,'' totally misses (or chooses to ignore) the U.S. Constitution and its role in this controversy. And in so doing, it retains exclusive occupational rights to any ``hall of shame.''
In their oaths of office, our elected officials swear ``to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.'' Since the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed to U.S. citizens under Article II of the Constitution's amendments, how do our elected officials, especially the president, remain true to their oaths by voting to limit gun-ownership rights that have been in effect since 1789?
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting or sportsmanship, so claiming that so-called assault weapons aren't suited to hunting is a smoke screen that's not relevant to the question. Militia rifles have been available to law-abiding citizens since the inception of this country (until now that is). These firearms have been surplus civilian versions of obsolete military rifles and aren't assault weapons. True, assault weapons are selective-fire military rifles, capable of full automatic modes of fire, and are banned to all except certain licensed firearms owners.
Militia rifles have been used for years to teach safe-shooting practices to summer campers, Boy Scout troops and other youth organizations in an attempt to have a citizenry that can defend itself and its country. If today's youth had access to more programs of this nature, they'd know safe-shooting practices and when the use of deadly force is appropriate. Firearms-safety education for youth would do far more to save lives than any infringement of our rights to gun ownership.
Western Virginia's congressmen deserve our thanks for protecting our constitutional rights from the likes of Sarah Brady's ``Allgun Control, Inc.'' and the encroachments upon citizen rights that are becoming more evident with each passing day of the present administration.
R. MICHAEL JORNLIN
VINTON
Consumer plan for health-care reform
THE TIME has come for the consumer health-care plan, which consists of guaranteed renewable insurance, no lifetime limits, guaranteed issue, coverage of pre-existing, malpractice legal reform, electronic claim filing and total tax deductibility for health-insurance premiums. There'd be eight health insurance plans sold - two health-maintenance organization (HMO) plans, two preferred-provider organization (PPO) plans and four fee-for-service plans - allowing consumers, not government, to decide which plan best suits their needs.
Prescription drugs would be covered by all health plans, and long-term care coverage would be available. Medicaid and Medicaid trusts would be abolished, and individual medical accounts could be used to fund long-term and home health-care costs. Long-term and home health-care insurance could be purchased, which would provide a minimum coverage of three years. After that, individual states would provide benefits at no cost to recipients.
The consumer plan's financing would be by a premium tax of 5 percent on all health-insurance policies, to be paid by health-insurance companies and large corporations that have self-funded plans. This money would be placed in a pool, and consumers with incomes at poverty level and 200 percent above poverty level would have access to it to purchase health insurance and prescription drugs.
The greatest savings in health-care costs can be accomplished by providing comfortable care, but preventing painful and unnecessary treatment, for the terminally ill. A terminally ill patient would be defined as one declared by three doctors to have less than one year of life left due to illness. Doctors wouldn't be held liable for this decision, and patients could appeal it to a review board. The consumer plan will work.
BETTY L. SWAGGERTY
ROCKY MOUNT
Emissions tests should be required
RECENTLY, several letters to the editor have compared tobacco pollution to vehicular pollution. Right on! Not only do I support bans on smoking in public places, I also feel we need emissions testing each year when renewing vehicle stickers.
On the subject of cars and driving, are stop signs and directional signals merely considered ornamental in the Roanoke Valley? I'm perplexed.
NANCY RAGONE
ROANOKE
by CNB