Sunday, February 29, 2004

Letters to the editor

Cutting Social Security hurts the poor

Just when we thought that the administration was finally recognizing that those with limited incomes were no longer to be punished for being poor, along comes a recommendation from Alan Greenspan that the elderly poor are made poorer ("Greenspan urges retirement cuts," Feb. 26).

He suggests cutting Social Security, an entitlement that has allowed millions of people to live - many not too well - with at least some financial security. He admits that reducing such benefits will not at all eliminate the deficit, but he did not address the factor, which, more than anything else, has generated the deficit: George Bush's tax cut. A tax cut which went principally to the wealthy, and who really had no need for more money when compared to the way the poor have to live in this country.

Dan Kanoza, Colerain Township


Greenspan's Social Security plan won't work

This year my increase in Social Security was a whopping $7 per month ("Greenspan urges retirement cuts," Feb. 26). I could not even buy a stamp everyday for a month. OK, Alan Greenspan, how much do you suggest be taken from my $7?

Kathryn L. O'Connell, Blue Ash


Social Security is just a retirement supplement

Alan Greenspan has thrown out a warning signal about the potential shortfalls of Social Security with the baby boomers closing in on retirement age ("Greenspan urges retirement cuts," Feb. 26). It will certainly become a major issue in the presidential election. Everyone will certainly expect his or her favorite candidate to present a solution.

Before everyone expects a solution, I hope they realize some of the problems. One of the main reasons there is not enough money for baby boomers is they did not pay enough in. When they started paying, life expectancy was much shorter than it is now. People have been living longer and collecting more.

If you can afford to retire at a younger age because you saved and invested money, good for you. Social Security has always meant to be a supplement to retirement, not the primary financing. If you are expecting Social Security to be your main source of income for your retirement, you have a lot more to worry about than working a few more years.

Chris McKeown, Montgomery


Moving offshore hurt American industry

Regarding the letter "Why the U.S. flags on foreign cars?" (Feb. 25): I'm not a union guy, nor did I work for the automobile industries. I did work for one of the industries that have all but disappeared, Cincinnati Milacron.

The writer did not mention that the automobile companies were very much responsible in Milacron's demise. They purchased machine tools manufactured in Japan, because of cheaper prices. They also in return received cheaper machine tools that did not last, nor did the accuracy last. Would this produce a good American car?

Yes, many industries have disappeared because of the bottom line being lowered by moving labor offshore.

James Bradley, Morrow


Support for Union Terminal is needed

Regarding the letter "Tax more fairly to fund attractions" (Feb. 20), Marilyn Gunn asked, "What does a homeowner get for a tax levy?"

With one key levy, a homeowner gets to help save an architectural icon - Cincinnati Museum Center at Union Terminal. The Museum Center is asking for a levy to repair and maintain one of the greatest art deco buildings in the nation. It is a well-run organization, but it is financially saddled with a huge expense. Expanded programs, more fabulous exhibits and broad community outreach are not an option right now. It must use all available dollars to support this building.

A vote for the Cincinnati Museum Center levy on Mar. 2, helps alleviate this expense. It helps save an important building. And thanks to the beauty of timing, due to other levies expiring - it doesn't add any new taxes.

Elizabeth Pierce, Mariemont


Run, Ralph Nader, run

Regarding the letter "Nader's to blame for Bush's election" (Feb. 24), accusing Nader is single-handedly undoing of the electoral process. I am no great fan of Ralph Nader, but I would submit that the letter writer missed out on elementary civics and United States history.

Anyone who meets eligibility requirements may run for the presidency. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have an absolute right to own the office. The whole point is to espouse new and different ideas, give a wider choice to the electorate and to move the country forward. The silencing of any candidate would be a fatal blow to our country, regardless of his/her stance.

I applaud Nader and welcome his voice to the election process.

Don Barnes, Milford


I hope Gibson's 'issues' like my own

I'm not sure I understand Jim Borgman's cartoon about Mel Gibson (Feb. 27). It appears that the father from Zits looks at the Crucifixion and says, "Mel, you have issues." Why does Mel have issues? Gibson has shown that the scourging and crucifixion of Christ were incredibly horrible and that we are all responsible because we are sinners, not because we are Jews or Romans.

Gibson chose to serve his Lord by painting a picture that a world immune to the pain of unnatural death would understand. If Mel has issues, I hope mine are just like his.

Missy Witt, Fort Wright


On 'Passion,' Kerry seems indecisive

I was gratified to read that Sen. John Kerry, the would-be commander in chief of the United States, was carefully weighing the options of seeing Mel Gibson's new movie The Passion of The Christ for fear that it might contain an anti-Semitic message.

Sen. Kerry wants to avoid offending any potential voters by making a decision, possibly based on faulty intelligence, so it's probably best to do nothing at all.

Of course, if the senator follows his usual pattern the question becomes, "Do I see the movie and then claim I didn't or avoid the film and claim I saw it?"

Let's just take a poll.

Isn't it reassuring that our leaders are so decisive in matters of such grave importance?

William Bissinger, Anderson Township


Real issue is marriage, not rights

Regarding the headline of the letter "Gays have same rights as straights do" (Feb. 27), is either the most idiotic or the most disingenuous of any opinion The Enquirer has printed on the issue of marriage equality.

Is it possible the writer actually believes his own argument, that gays and straights have acceptably equal rights because all can legally marry the opposite sex? Does he truly need to be told that in a just society, the germane issue is whether one can marry the person one loves?

John C. Brennan, Clifton

Perspectives from different faiths
Movie buffs weigh in with views of 'Passion'
Hot Corner: Nipping at the heels of the newsmakers
Let's Talk: Discipline dilemma
Letters on 'The Passion of The Christ'

Support Edwards in the primary
Endorsements in GOP legislative races
Freedom Center's funding to come from many sources
Early assessment prevents problems
Chamber's new chair touts inclusion and diversity
Letters to the editor