Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, November 24, 1994 TAG: 9412070031
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A30 EDITION: HOLIDAY
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The good news starts with major reform of failed programs and the policies of a governing body turned into a dictatorship. The small clique of elected officials who control which schools we send our children to, which retirement accounts we contribute to, and which postal service we utilize is being replaced by a government wanting to retreat from our everyday lives, one that wants us to enjoy freedom, and one that respects our responsibility to make our own choices.
The good news continues with tax cuts. Not since former President Reagan have the American people seen relief from the tax burden they endure every year - a tax burden created by necessity, but one that continues and grows by indolence. Americans now realize the time has come to cut government spending on failed programs that keep citizens from being productive.
The good news goes on with term limits. To limit Congress members' tour on Capitol Hill will put control of government back in the people's hands. Gone will be the days of congressional dictatorship. It will be replaced with a government truly of the people, for the people.
The good news will then expand in 1996 when voters again choose conservatism as our leader because it's a way of life, our way of life - a way of life that allows us freedom to plot our own course, and thrives on success, not failure. It is the American dream.
JOHN D. WENDLING EAGLE ROCK
Books are also treasured resources
CHILDREN ARE our nation's most precious resource. They are the symbol and hope of our future. Like children, books are also a precious resource. Books entertain and enlighten our lives. They show the possibilities our future holds, and serve as record keepers for our past.
Parents need to be reminded that reading is an important part of a child's growth process. It opens a child's mind, in turn opening the door to worlds of learning and adventure.
LISA STEPHENS ROANOKE
Valley's air service is getting worse
ONE REASON I retired to Roanoke five years ago was the excellent service and safe operation of Piedmont Airlines. Shortly after I built a home here, Piedmont sold out to USAir, and things have rapidly deteriorated since with air service out of Roanoke.
Since retirement, my wife and I travel overseas every year. I first used USAir to get to Kennedy in New York to make connections. After repeated cancellations (one due to mechanical difficulty), late departures (five or six hours), and rerouting through Pittsburgh on commuter aircraft, I asked my travel agent to try other ports of departure using other airlines.
I then tried United Express to Dulles with connections overseas. On our return trip from Europe last year, the flight to Roanoke was five hours late due to the airline's failure to schedule a crew for the aircraft, which was sitting at the gate. A bleary-eyed crew finally showed up, and then the airline bumped several passengers in favor of employees deadheading to Roanoke.
This year, I tried ASA (Delta connection) to Atlanta to catch Delta overseas. The flight to Altanta was canceled, and returned to Atlanta due to mechanical difficulty. We hurried to Lynchburg via limousine to catch another ASA flight to Atlanta. On our return flight, the ASA commuter plane was delayed before takeoff while crews replaced a ``black box'' to monitor the aircraft instrumentation in the cockpit.
These aren't isolated cases. Many Roanoke people are driving to other airports to catch more reliable and jet aircraft. Travel agents confirm this privately, but won't do so publicly due to their reliance on airlines for their commissions.
IRVIN C. WOOD ROANOKE
Positive news story is appreciated
I WANT to express my appreciation for the article published about Rachel Chandler and her letters (Nov. 15 news article, ``Wisdom from the willing''). It's so refreshing to read positive stories about young people.
MARION FRITZ UNION HALL
Cattle farmers are unfairly attacked
A NOV. 10 letter to the editor by Jack Norris (``Contaminated water everywhere''), condemning the cattle industry for contamination of water as a result of chemical runoff, betrayed a familiar theme played by animal rightists. His implication that 90 percent of agricultural land should be taken out of production because it's used to raise animal food was clear to me.
I wonder how many people are cognizant of the millions of dollars farmers have spent conforming to environmentalists' ever-increasing demands, some of which are unreasonable and against which farmers have fought - and won - court battles only to learn they had won Pyrrhic victories. No one is more interested in preventing erosion than Virginia's farmers.
For one thing, the farmer's topsoil is the first to fall victim to erosion, and it can take more than a lifetime to adequately replace it. Farmers also drink water. Their interest in the changing regulations regarding the battle against weeds and insects precipitates their attendance at chemical workshops on proper usage of a product that will be here long after the independent American farmer has joined the dodo bird sometime during the first half of the 21st century, setting the stage for another consumer rape reminiscent of the oil-monopoly gouge 20 years ago.
No logically thinking person ever swallowed the story about a ``shortage'' of petroleum products during the early and mid-'70s. Nor does anyone believe there's a coffee shortage as the result of a freeze in Colombia. The only difference I've observed is a doubling of the price. That practice will become the norm when giant food conglomerates assert their power and bypass a number of middlemen, one of which is the livestock buyer who fixes cattle prices. The American cattle farmer is the only self-employed businessman, of whom I'm aware, who pays retail for virtually everything he needs to operate his business and sells wholesale at prices determined, in my opinion, by collusion.
Norris' letter was insidiously unfair, and failed to conceal his true motivation in writing it. Nor did it mention the enormous amounts of human wastes deposited directly, and deliberately, into large man-made lakes by water recreationists.
RAYMOND L. WILKERSON EVINGTON
Overzealous federal help for the poor
AFTER READING the Nov. 14 news article, ``Mobile food aid planned,'' is it any wonder that we cannot balance the federal budget? The statement ``each year the USDA urges the state to increase participation in the WIC program instead of turning back money to the federal government'' says it all. Heaven forbid we should turn back money so that we might lower the deficit or reduce taxes.
Now instead of having people come to the agencies for assistance, the agencies will go to the people. Has anyone ever considered the idea that perhaps assistance isn't needed, and that's why people aren't flocking to agencies for help? Does a family of four with an annual income of $27,380, who would qualify for the program, really need supplemental food?
Judy Garrett, public-health nutritionist for the Alleghany Health District, said, ``There are a lot of barriers for our clients, like homelessness. Normally, if you don't have a home or food, you don't have a way to get somewhere to get it.'' That raises this question: If you don't have a home, you don't have a stove or a refrigerator, so how does giving a homeless person food (unless it's already cooked) benefit that person?
Instead of making people more self-sufficient by teaching them how to prepare low-cost nutritious meals, how to raise their own vegetables in the summer, and how to better budget the income they have, the federal government's answer seems to be: ``We'll take care of you; we'll make you dependent on us.''
Yvonne Gilpin, nutritionist supervisor for the Richmond Health Department, made the statement: ``The best thing we've been able to do is pick up some new people and re-enroll people who left the program.'' Is that really the best that can be done? Should we run after people who've left the program and try to re-enroll them, or be thankful these people no longer need the aid?
Garrett says she has some concerns about staffing and continued funding of the mobile clinic beyond the first year. So do I. My concern is the continual expansion of government programs, and the burden it represents to taxpayers. Do we need programs to help the less fortunate? Yes. Do we need to go out into the countryside and urge people to accept aid? No.
RUTH H. SHOTT ROANOKE
by CNB