Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, August 27, 1994 TAG: 9410050001
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Like Allen's solution to the crime problem, his argument against preventive measures is oversimplified. While I might agree that midnight basketball and other specific crime-prevention programs in the federal crime bill may turn out to be ineffective, to write off all efforts to prevent crime under the convenient political label of ``social-welfare spending'' defies common sense. Most crime victims would probably prefer the crime against them had not been committed over the joy of knowing their assailants are in prison for 12 years instead of eight. But Allen's solution only deals with the crime problem after a person has been robbed, raped or murdered.
Thus, the three-strikes-and-you're-out provision sounds tough, but it overlooks the three or more victims whom these criminals will strike before they go to jail for life. ``Trying hardened juvenile offenders as adults'' suggests that we'll allow these juveniles to commit enough crimes to become ``hardened'' before we act, which means more victims. And increasing the number of police may lead to apprehension of more criminals, but only after they commit crimes.
I'm not naive enough to think that efforts to get at the root cause of crime to prevent crime will eliminate it from our society. Yet to totally ignore social conditions that breed criminals seems irresponsible. Disregarding any attempts at prevention may benefit Allen politically in our conservative state. For future victims, however, Virginia will still not be the wonderful Disneyland that he suggests his simple solution will create.
JACK SPRAKER SALEM
A return to good old days?
ISN'T IT time Americans went back to those 12 great Republican years when we all felt happy on lower taxes, borrowed money, and a tripling of the national debt? We don't want any part of the socialized government that Clinton and liberal Democrats are pushing.
And while we're at it, let's get rid of those other forms of socialism that Roosevelt and other Democrats promoted. We don't need Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and health-care reform. It should be every man for himself, and each person with his own assault rifle to protect what he has. After all, isn't this a Christian country?
MARCIA WEIS ROANOKE
Glowing article had glaring omissions
YOU HAD a nice public-relations piece on 5th District Congressman L. F. Payne (Aug. 7 news article, ``Payne shows Congress he can play power game''). This being an election year, Payne should find the front-page photo and glowing article helpful. Your staff writer told of his service to tobacco farmers, rural doctors, UVa, etc. Under such wise and benevolent leadership, we in the 5th District should delight.
But wait! Maybe I'm wrong. The next day's Opinion page had an editorial (``Debt and deficit doomsday'') warning that by the year 2012 entitlements and debt service will eat up every (editor's italics) tax dollar collected. Under this frightening scenario, should we thank Payne for bringing home more money and pork to rural Virginia? Is he not putting his district's narrow interests above the country's welfare?
Likewise, don't forget it was Payne who last August cast the tie-breaking vote passing Bill Clinton's tax package. That didn't lower the deficit one trifle; it only slowed its increase. Now, some retirees pay more taxes on their Social Security, money they worked hard to earn for retirement.
Also, he voted in committee for Clinton-Gephardt's health-care reform bill to reach the House floor, thus bringing the government's rapacious hand one step closer to controlling one-seventh of the nation's economy. He wants academic health centers to pocket a 1 percent tax on health-insurance premiums, as if health insurance wasn't expensive enough already.
These are some points that were overlooked in the article, but should be remembered by voters in November.
SCOTT DREYER MONETA
Nation's founding was biblically based
THIS COUNTRY was founded on the Bible, and it's time we went back to it.
Patrick Henry said, ``It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians ... not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.'' George Washington said, ``Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.''
To continue the list, James Madison said, ``We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.''
I don't get it. If the Bible and God were so important to our founding fathers, then why on Earth have we banned them from public schools? I'm just a junior in high school, but if it were up to me, I think I would allow students to be taught about the beliefs of our own founding fathers.
AMY HAYES ROCKY MOUNT
Replace Robb, and Payne, too
OLIVER NORTH has morals, and is a war hero who served his country well. If the people send him to Washington, he'll help clean up the mess there.
Chuck Robb is a liberal follower of President Clinton and Ted Kennedy. I never heard about North hanging around drug parties. He did what the liberal Congress refused to do - he saved hostages, and cleared the communists from South America.
If people want the same thing to keep going on in Washington, vote for Robb. If they want a man who'll speak up, send North to the Senate.
I also think L.F. Payne, who is a liberal in sheep's clothing, should be replaced.
WOODROW W. HUBBARD BEDFORD
by CNB