ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, August 15, 1996 TAG: 9608150025
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
THOSE WHOSE political judgment I respect most seem to be united in feeling that President Clinton has betrayed us by agreeing to sign the welfare-reform bill. There is no question that we would feel better if he had defied Congress' mean-spirited attack on our most defenseless fellow citizens, but his decision was best for those very citizens.
The American people have come to believe, as an article of faith, that the welfare system must be radically changed. It's true that this belief has been built up largely by 30 years of (often specious) drumfire attacks on the system and its beneficiaries. It's also true that most Americans aren't clear about what ``reform'' should include. By signing this bill, Clinton has defused much of the public pressure for change and opened the possibility of genuine reform.
In this atmosphere, if Bob Dole is elected and the 105th Congress is anything like the 104th - both of which are possible, aside from any effect of the welfare debate - 1997 activity on welfare will be much better with a signed bill than a vetoed one. Radical cutbacks will be somewhat more difficult; marginal improvements will be somewhat more possible.
If Clinton is re-elected, which should be the first priority from now until November of everyone who wants better treatment for the underprivileged, he will certainly do more to improve the situation than Dole would. Under the 1996 legislation, some clients will be better off than before. Clinton can concentrate on programs that will help the rest.
In view of the general mind-set of the American people, there is no way that any political leader or group can restore the open-ended entitlement features of welfare. A real reform of the system will certainly be a long, hard job. Clinton has set us on that path.
AUGUSTUS C. JOHNSON
SYRIA
Others found signs of outer-space life
IN VARIOUS reports on the possibility of life on Mars, I have seen no mention of earlier work on the occurrence of possible life forms in meteorites. Observations of German scientist Dr. H.D. Pflug in the early '70s while examining the Murchison meteorite do not differ greatly from the findings of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists. In the early '60s, two American scientists reported finding "organized elements" in meteorites that they considered biological in nature.
The topic of possible life forms in meteorites is discussed at length by Sir Fred Hoyle in his book "The Intelligent Universe" (Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston, l985).
One would get the impression from news reports of the NASA research that its findings were the first and only such observations. Perhaps the first related to Mars.
GORDON R. CARTER
BLACKSBURG
Our pension funds have been stolen
IN RESPONSE to Mike Marlowe's Aug. 3 letter to the editor, ``A quick fix for Social Security'':
His letter is the most asinine and uninformed I've ever read.
Let's take me as an example. I've been paying into Social Security since its inception - most of the time the maximum contribution, which is matched by my employer. These funds were credited to an account and Social Security number in my name, to be distributed to me upon my retirement based on a formula, as all pensions are. Since these funds were mine, I do consider this an entitlement. Had these monies been invested properly, by now the payments would have been at least twice the amount. Check any properly managed pension plan. For example, the Railroad Retirement Fund.
The biggest problem the Social Security system has is the distribution of funds charged to it that go to political programs that do not have the remotest relation to old-age retirement. These payments should be charged to the general fund.
How often is the Social Security system audited as to proper payments and proper interest payments from the U.S. government for the funds borrowed?
Yes, I've earned and paid for my Social Security retirement checks. Incidently, I'm still working and paying FICA taxes as well as income tax!
EDWIN C. WOODS
SALEM
Roanoke County is not paying its share
IN JEFF Sturgeon's Aug. 4 article in the Business section, titled ``Turmoil in tourism,'' he listed the annual contributions of Roanoke city taxpayers ($500,000) and Roanoke County taxpayers ($107,500) to the regional Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Was it any surprise that, once again, the city's contribution was much larger than the county's?
City taxpayers pay the highest taxes in the valley so we can ``carry'' everyone else along. We are the only jurisdiction that provides public housing and health care for the poor. We have become a social-service mecca for the entire valley. We pay for many services (snow removal, street maintenance, etc.) that the state provides for the county. Yet we have the highest concentration of elderly residents living on fixed incomes, and 95 percent of the valley's poor people.
With the county's population almost that of the city's, it looks like Roanoke County could start to shoulder a little more weight. We in the city are tired of paying your way!
RONALD E. MULLINS
ROANOKE
LENGTH: Long : 101 linesby CNB