Letters to the Editor - March 13

March 12, 2011

Corporations, wealthy seem to miss out on 'sacrifice'

To the editor:

Can someone explain why public sector union workers are expected to give back their benefits and salaries in tough economic times, but the wealthy and corporations are somehow exempt from the shared sacrifice?

I have seen and heard opinions from those who are in support of the union busting techniques in Wisconsin and other mid-Western states, that union members generally make 42 percent more (national average) than workers who are in the private sector.  

I find it strange that the very people who are supporting the actions of the governor of Wisconsin are the very same people who believe that in a good capitalistic system, everyone should have the right to make their own wealth and live the "American Dream."

Being an elected official, I understand that many states are facing major cuts in funding from state and federal sources, but to ask the middle class to "sacrifice" to help bridge gaps in a budget and allow large corporations and individuals to avoid sharing in the pain is simply un-American.


Donnie Souders Jr.

Vice President,

Smithsburg Town Council

If budgets are a problem, raise taxes or cut benefits

To the editor:

In the Sunday, March 6, Herald Mail, there are two very interesting pieces. On page A4, columnist Charles Krauthammer states that, "The nation faces a fiscal crisis of historic proportions..."

Krauthammer goes on to explain that, in part, this problem is the result of, "sweetheart deals the public-sector unions had negotiated for themselves for years," and "unsustainable federal entitlements for the elderly enacted when life expectancy was 62." Krauthammer explains that, "Republican governors are taking on unsustainable, fiscally ruinous pension healthcare obligations."

In other venues we have all heard some politicians state things such as, "We cannot raise the taxes on the rich because that would be socialistic income redistribution" and, "We cannot raise taxes on business because taxes are bad for business."

If government expenses cannot be met by raising taxes, then government expenses must be lowered by lowering benefits. On the front page of the same Sunday paper is an article talking about how Maryland is working on balancing its budget in part by lowering prescription drug coverage benefits for current and former state workers.

The article includes statements from two retired people about the impact this proposal will have on them and statements from state legislators Donoghue and Edwards saying that, "legislators are trying to scale back the proposed increases."

Voters cannot have it both ways. Politicians cannot have it both ways. If expenses are too high than either taxes must be raised or benefits must be cut. Voters voting for politicians who promise to cut millions of dollars out of the state budget without raising taxes and at the same time argue against proposed increases in out-of-pocket expenses for entitlements are not being logical, or sensible, but politicians who make such promises are getting reelected.

Russell Williams


One more funeral for Westboro Baptist Church to attend

To the editor:

Mr. Phelps:

I have decided to write this letter following your recent appellate victory in the case of Snyder v. Phelps. First, I must say, congratulations! Winning in the Supreme Court is no small feat, particularly in dealing with freedom of speech. Second, I will clearly state that I vehemently disagree with your twisted, evil and corrupted views on American society and those who volunteer to serve their country honorably. Third, I would like to formally invite you, and the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, to a funeral should there be one in the near future — my own.

Sir, I am preparing to deploy to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. I have chosen to join an organization, an obligation I took freely, in which there are certain and obvious risks involved.

I have done this, sir, because I believe that the expense of my life is meager compared to the gains of liberty and freedom in which I could bring not only to our fellow citizens of this country, but to the world as well.

Should the final days of my life culminate in this task, I implore you to voice your opinion of me as a "gay enabler" and whatever other creative verbal illustrations you can throw my way. Do this, Mr. Phelps, as my American flag-draped coffin steadily marches before you en route to my body's final resting place. Just remember, that the ideals I believed in and fought for, live on in the very words you spit at me.

You may ask, why would I be willing to openly allow you to my funeral? The answer, Sir, is quite simple. I encourage your attendance at my funeral because I know that if someone as sick, misaligned and repugnant as you has freedom of speech, so will all the people of our great country who actually have something valuable to say and fight for. Yes, I am willing to die for these people, even for you.

Mr. Phelps, in closing, I would like to point you toward one of my favorite chapters from the Bible, John Chapter 8, verses 4-7: "They say unto him, 'Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned; but what sayest thou?' This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking Him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, 'He that is without sin, may cast the first stone.'"

Good day, Sir.

Kevin C. Pelletier, formerly of Washington County, is a second lieutanant in the United States Army.

The Herald-Mail Articles