Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, March 2, 1995 TAG: 9503020029
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
My support for this bill has nothing to do with a gung-ho Rambo desire to ``help'' the police. But in today's society, criminal acts happen in the safest and most unexpected places, and responsible lawmen freely admit they cannot possibly cover all areas and all threats. So, what is a citizen to do? Liberal philosophy would have us stay inside, close the blinds, lock the doors, restrict our right to peacefully come and go, and give up the right we have to defend ourselves. Roll over and play dead! Well, none of my Virginia forefathers would have bought it. Quite a few took up arms when necessary to defend their rights, and I see no reason to capitulate in today's troubled environment.
Some years ago, I encountered a threat that caused me to become seriously concerned about my safety and that of my family. I contacted Judge Devore's office in Christiansburg and was told in no uncertain terms that he didn't approve concealed-weapons permits. Period! End of conversation! So, for the next several months, I broke the law and did what I thought was justified, right and reasonable. (Fortunately, the threat didn't materialize.) Except for liberal socialists, most folks I know would have done the same.
This bill will have no born-again effect on those who act with criminal intent to harm others. Muggers, robbers, rapists and murderers will still be with us, but I strongly feel their decision to act will be sorely affected if they think an intended victim has the means and the will to alter the outcome.
Should this bill bring on all the fears listed by opponents, the voters can demand it be struck. But should the crime rate decrease as a result of the bill, will opponents then endorse it? I won't hold my breath waiting.
RICHARD K. CULBERTSON
BLACKSBURG
Off the table? Don't believe it
IT APPEARS the public is being completely misled by the White House, Congress and, to some degree, by your editorials when it's stated that Social Security is ``off the table'' in considering actions to be taken to balance the budget.
Social Security payments are made from the Social Security Trust Fund (not Supplemental Security Income, which is a general-fund obligation). These trust funds are funded from past and present F.I.C.A. taxes (excluding payments to the Medicare Trust Fund.)
These taxes are not payments to the general fund. But past and present administrations have ``borrowed'' more than $450 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund. Special IOUs were given, which have to be repaid by taxpayers (who will be again paying for what they paid originally) and which also increased the national debt. Adding insult to injury is the fact that the Supreme Court has agreed and sanctioned this ``borrowing.''
The other part of F.I.C.A. taxes - payments made to the Medicare Trust Funds - have likewise been raided to pay for general hospital costs, medical education, salaries, high-tech equipment, etc., and not all directly returned to taxpayers. It's also claimed that Medicare is broke or bankrupt, but a recent increase of 11 percent in payments to surgeons, compared to a 2.3 percent inflation, doesn't help restore the balance of Medicare Trust Funds.
Also, realize that salary and wage increases result in an increase in the 50 percent of F.I.C.A. taxes that are paid by the employer. This, in turn, adds to the selling price of goods and services, which is then passed on to the consumer!
Washington and politicians appear to think that the peasants are stupid. Please don't play the Washington game.
WILLIAM E. BUTTERFIELD
BLUE RIDGE
Disruptions skew the learning process
ON FEB. 14, I was taken to task by Linda Lang (letter to the editor, ``Disabled also need quality education'') and called narrow-minded because she thinks differently from the way I do. How much better it would have been for her to tell us how she differed with me without name-calling, but most people who disagree somehow cannot do that. Too often they isolate a sentence or two out of context without following the entire reasoning. Bear in mind that my original letter had been cut by the Roanoke Times & World-News, and Lang didn't report the entire letter correctly, either.
I had written primarily to support two aspects of Gov. Allen's proposals: one, to cut welfare as we know it. These are the ``special needs'' people I refer to. And so that Lang won't misunderstand, I mean teen-age girls who, although unmarried, produce children that we have to support. I don't think it's right to reward people for immoral behavior. I still think those in this country who try should be helped. I never said anything about not helping the physically or mentally handicapped, because I don't consider them ``special needs.'' To write the statements that Lang did and attribute them to me is unfair.
My letter was also in support of charter schools. My argument is that since we already have alternative programs for students in danger of dropping out, the physically handicapped, etc., we need to give alternatives to the average and above average who may not enjoy sitting in a classroom with students who disrupt classes four or five times a class period. Many of these disruptive students have been judged incapable of controlling their behavior for whatever reasons, but the problem remains: It disrupts the learning process for those who want to learn. I think those who want to learn should be able to excel without constant distractions.
PATRICIA P. HAMMOND
ROANOKE
by CNB