Letters to the Editor - Jan. 7

January 06, 2011

Callaham needs to support his characterization

To the editor:

In his own words, Art Callaham says he is "... an unabashed Constitutionalist" and fiscal conservative, who is opposed to expanded government, raising taxes and "anything that is illegal," including immigration, and who is in favor of both business and economic growth. 

Can this be the same Art Callaham who not only voted for, but publicly supported and funded soon-to-be ex-senator and RINO Donald F. Munson?

Without demonstrating point by point how Callaham has advocated — and spent — our dollars for his special desires, I feel comfortable characterizing him as a "give me public money because I know how to spend it more intelligently than the rest of us" partisan. Asking what he has done for business and to provide an economic growth agenda in our county is a challenge I feel comfortable issuing. 


Perhaps in future columns, "in the interest of full disclosure," he will expand and expound on the particulars that support his characterization of himself. Let us remember that a strong history of getting public money through bond bill borrowing, for public sector purposes, is not typical behavior of any conservative I know and love.

Tom Janus


Government can save on marriage

To the editor:

This is in response to the column, "Is the road out of poverty down the aisle? Yes and no," published on the Tuesday, Jan. 4, Opinion page. 

I agree that marriage might help with getting out of poverty and saving our government some expenses on social programs. Unfortunately, it is not because marriage is so much better financially, but rather the two incomes combined would put a family above the cut-off income to receive benefits from social programs. 

I am currently receiving unemployment benefits and my wife is disabled and receiving Social Security. However, when the two incomes are added together, we make $12 a week over the cut-off amount. Therefore, we are not eligible for assistance and can't even get our child a reduced-price lunch at school. The $12 a week certainly does not add up to the benefits we could receive from social programs if we were not married. 

I feel the government would save on marriage primarily because many couples would be above the cut-off income and be denied benefits. As a result, many families that earn just above the cut-off income would be worse if they would marry and combine their income. 

However, I am for marriage for personal beliefs, and I can't complain because I am blessed with where I live, friends, family and a church that would help if needed. Many others are not that fortunate.

Jeff Pine

Clear Spring

The Herald-Mail Articles