Try not to look too far ahead, but keep your eyes on the future.

NEWSDAY'S Letters to the Editor Thursday March 11, 2004

Number of Letters from the LEFT: 5
Number of Letters from the RIGHT: 8

---

Left Letters:

1) …George W. Bush is the most regressive president since Herbert Hoover. Take his tax cuts for the rich (please). Our tax system is progressive, in that the wealthier are supposed to pay a higher percentage because of their higher income. Bush's tax cats took the regressive path, with 40 percent of the cut going to the wealthiest 1 percent.
Take his insistence on abolishing the estate tax. That tax was initiated to prevent the wealthiest of families from passing on huge fortunes to their offspring.
Who benefitted from its abolishment? The super-rich.
His main goal since moving into the White House has been to undo all the progressive programs, including Social Security and Medicare. His privatization proposals would undermine, and eventually destroy, both programs.
It's time America returned to progressive programs and progressive presidents. We don't need 19th-century administrations.
Look at the damage this one has caused in less than four years. -Paul McElroy Forest Hills

Well regressive path may not be the right word but I understand what Mr. McElroy is saying. The point of the cuts is that the more you pay the more you get back. Certainly the people who pay the most would be receiving the most back. People who don’t pay can’t get anything back. You can’t get back $1000 from $0. It is not cash payout but cash back. The super rich are also the ones that usually have worked the hardest & smartest, taken the most risk and employ the most people. Destroying the rich hurts everyone as the top 5% pay 50% of the taxes. Giving them an incentive to work harder and smarter helps everyone. That’s a capitalist society. If Mr. McElroy prefers we can go to a flat tax system which maybe better for everyone and stop this class warfare.

2) …The National Education Association should not take umbrage at Secretary of Education Rod Paige for his recent use of the "T" word (terrorist) to describe them ["Education secretary criticized," News, Feb. 25]. He got this "T" word from his CEO, President George W. Bush.
Sooner or later, this was bound to happen, especially if his CEO constantly speaks about it. Since 9/11, George W. Bush has used the "T" word on every occasion. His obsession with the "T" word has pervaded most of the members of his cabinet. This is all there is to it: It is Paige's bad company. Poor man! -G. M. Chandu Flushing

Poor Man? G.M. is so poor that he/she doesn’t even have a real name. Just Initials! Here's a quarter. Buy a vowel at least. Does G.M. Chandu believe that terrorists are a figment of the President’s imagination? We are at war with terrorists. What word does G.M. think he should use? It is unfortunate that Mr. Paige used such a word. It is just as unfortunate that Senator Kerry called Republicans terrorists too. People need to stop and think before labeling others. Think carefully. On the other hand this are teeny, tiny issues and G.M. should spend the time getting more letters to fill out his name.

3) …One look at Saturday's Newsday shows that the government got exactly what it was looking for in the prosecution of Martha Stewart. The story dominated pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 18 and the editorial.
It wasn't until page 6 and 7 that we could read about such unimportant stories as the drafting of the Iraqi constitution or the anemic national jobs report.
I think back to last year when the House Committee on Commerce and Energy held hearings on the Stewart matter when it should have been investigating important cases such as Enron or Halliburton.
Stewart is being used to detract attention from the truly important issues of our day. -Stuart Davis Merrick

Stewart should be prosecuted. She didn’t just do something she knew was wrong (but wasn’t convicted of) but lying and hiding evidence from the Feds. This they will not tolerate. So they needed to make an example of anyone that thinks they can get away with this just because they’re rich. This writer is obviously left bias as they used the word “anemic” for the national jobs report and mentioned Halliburton. Halliburton is not a big scandal like Enron. Now, Global Crossings is but Mr. Davis wouldn’t mention that because that would make people think about Terry McAuliffe. Yikes!

4) …How many thousands of workers lost their pensions and 401k benefits and are now forced to work because of Martha Stewart's wrongdoing?
When will the overzealous federal prosecutors who "mean to set an example" be putting Ken Lay and his disgusting Enron cronies behind bars?
Or, does the pursuit of real justice not apply to those with friends in the White House? -Linda Strome Manorville

Anyone who reads a newspaper not called NEWSDAY knows that the Feds are going after the Enron people. It will take a little longer to build a case as it is a much more complicated issue. Stay tuned. I believe the Enron people gave money to the Democrats and the Republicans. If anyone is IN ON it then it is probably all of them.

5) …Martha Stewart faces 20 years in jail and $1 million in fines for being convicted on four counts of lying. President George W. Bush can't be sleeping very well after that! -John P. McDonough Mineola

How is it that every letter about Martha Stewart turns it around and mentions the President? Where is the logic in this? When did the President lie? Where is the logic in that?

6) …Your editorial praising Alan Greenspan's tough talk on Social Security only tells half the story ["Like it or not, he's right," Sunday Opinion, March 7].
The other half is his work on the task force that reformed Social Security so that it was manageable for the next 70 years - even though he then backed the Bush tax cuts that caused budget shortfalls as far into the future as possible to forecast.
So Bush raids the Social Security trust fund to finance the cuts, and Greenspan tells the people who depend on Social Security that they will have to take reduced benefits and wait longer to receive them so that the wealthy can have their tax cuts. -George J. Stinsman Holtsville

Scare tactics are cool. The wealthy are bad and evil. Tax cuts are bad and evil. Greenspan smart and stupid. Soc Sec trust fund is raided. Does any of these statements actually ring true?

7) …It is indeed awe-inspiring that Newsday can write a two-page editorial endorsing Alan Greenspan's plan to deal with the federal deficit by raising the Social Security retirement age and lowering benefits without mentioning the two major causes of the deficit, neither of which is Social Security.
One is President George W. Bush's tax cuts, which will transfer trillions of dollars from the federal government to the richest 5 percent of the population.
The second is Bush's war in Iraq, which has cost the United States $200 billion so far and promises to cost hundreds of billions of dollars more before it is over.
Without these drains on the budget, there would be no need to balance the budget on the backs of American workers. -Frank Anshen East Setauket

Scare tactics are cool part two. So what have we learned today? Tax cuts are bad. The richest 5 percent are bad. War in Iraq bad. Spending money is bad.

8) …While I applaud the wish to have a memorial built for the firefighters and other rescue workers who gave their lives on Sept. 11, it is wrong to imply that civilians did not run up the stairs at the World Trade Center or toward the buildings just because he didn't see any ["9/11 memorial," Letters, March 5].
My co-worker and friend, Zack Zeng, a volunteer paramedic, left his desk after the first plane hit the North Tower. After the second plane hit the South Tower, he was never to be seen again. He fearlessly and gallantly gave his life while offering medical assistance to injured strangers.
Let's not forget those who worked in the towers and were already there when the planes struck but chose to stay behind to help others, despite the untenable and diminishing circumstances around them.
I hope the writer of the above-mentioned letter will read this and join me in lauding all those gave the ultimate sacrifice that day, despite their chosen professions. -Roger Adelmann
West Babylon

I know that everyone is a hero. But what is the problem with uplifting someone else like firemen and EMTs? It is not downplaying others. No one is really implying that civilians did not do heroic acts. But is this division really helping anyone memories or is it just making the rest of us think that some of the families and friends of the dead are a little petty?


Right Letters:

1) …I disagree with Jimmy Breslin's assertion that gays are banned from the St. Patrick's Day Parade ["Intolerance hounded at Sunnyside parade," News, March 9]. They are not banned, and they can march like anyone else.
What is banned are gay organizations that promote their perverse lifestyle in a parade dedicated to a Roman Catholic saint. Is that so odd?
Apparently perverse Breslin thinks so.
I would be the first to say that the parade needs to lighten up and be more creative with floats, costumes and things for kids. That's what they do in Ireland.
What we don't need is thousands of screaming sodomites celebrating their disgusting lifestyle. They have their own "gay pride" parade where they can "celebrate" their sickness and try to convince us that gay is good.
I'm not surprised Breslin supports our law-breaking mayor in New Paltz, who has as much contempt for the law and the public as Breslin does. -Bill Mulcahy New Paltz

Calling homosexuals sodomites is not a good way to get your point across. The fact IS that gay organizations cannot participate in the parade. Nor, I assume, can Divorce organizations and Planned Parenthood. The individuals can participate but not the groups.

2) …Regarding "End of McRoad for big idea" [News, March 4]: Once again, the victims in our society feel the need to blame someone other than themselves for their problem.
McDonald's is being pressured to get rid of its super-size menu because it is making people fat. Give me a break.
We live in a free-will society. We have choices. Personally, because I do not want to eat foods I consider unhealthy for my body, I choose not to order those things at McDonald's. But I don't expect the McDonald's corporation to make that decision for me.
When Michael Jacobsen says, "If McDonald's truly cared about its customers' hearts and arteries, it would reformulate its cooking oil to eliminate trans fats," does he really think the fast-food chain should be responsible for my healthy or unhealthy choices?
The writing is on the wall: You don't have to be a Harvard graduate to know that you are not doing your body well by eating oversized portions of hamburgers and French fries.
If people would stand up and take responsibility for their actions, we could spend less time reading disclaimers on coffee cups from companies who fear being sued and more time tending to our own business. -Christine Marino Smithtown

Lawyers and Judges should be ashamed of themselves for hurting the little people. I want my supersize Fries!