Social Programs Are More Vital than Defense

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

A. Barton Hinkle's columns are always interesting and thought-provoking, but when his opinions move right, they really move right. This is exemplified in his column, "Spending Other's People Money Is Now Taken for Granted." He opines that public goods such as national defense, parks, and the like are proper federal responsibilities while other redistributive programs are not.

Isn't it a rather twisted political philosophy that holds that the Pentagon is a public good while assurances of old-age pensions, adequate health care, and the like are not?

The Founding Fathers, whose core republican principles opposed any permanent, large-standing army and national police, would certainly fear that today's military-industrial complex and internal security institutions are far greater threats to liberty than Social Security or Medicare. Unfortunately, the exigencies of the Cold War and terrorism forced us to discard these values about which conservatives are still in denial today. For most people, the day of the rugged individualist died a long time ago. Today's uncontrollable social forces make Social Security, health care, workers' compensation, and the like modern public goods, necessary for a healthy and productive society.

Why are Republicans and conservatives, who claim traditional republican principles, so supportive of national police and security mechanisms and not social welfare? Why do they worry so much about economic liberty for the rich and not about the welfare of the middle class? They have become so plutocratic and well-funded by powerful special interests that they have completely abandoned the Founders' republican principles and now want only to save their material world.

At the same time, the Democrats have become plutocrats-lite. That's why the energy, agriculture, and transportation bills that recently passed Congress heavily favor rich special interests at the expense of social program that would benefit the rest of us.

Charles W. Peraino. Richmond.

Don't Fault Lawmakers For Being Reimbursed

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

A recent front-page headline pertained to the acceptance by most members of the General Assembly of the per diem and mileage allowances to which they are entitled for the special session on transportation, and it created the perception that this was somehow improper or opportunistic on their part. The article was only a very few column inches in length and dealt mostly with two members who declined to accept their payments, as well as the overall cost of the special session to the public.

This seems patently unfair to the members of the Assembly, who were called away from their businesses, law firms, and homes by the governor to address an important public issue. The wisdom of calling the special session and some of the proposals that were advanced to solve our transportation dilemma may be fairly debated, but when a special session is duly called by the appropriate authority, members of the assembly should not be criticized for accepting allowances that are designed simply to cover a part of their out-of-pocket expenses in coming to Richmond to serve.

Thomas A. Edmonds. Richmond.

Goldman's Ideas Highlight Inadequacies

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

The recent editorial, "Idea Man," combined with your reports on mayoral candidate Paul Goldman's proposals for economic development, prove that Goldman is not fit to be Richmond's mayor.

While there are some examples of successful pedestrian malls created by closing retail corridors to vehicle traffic, most of these experiments resulted in community stagnation that required expensive government subsidy to overcome. This method of revitalization has been discredited for more than two decades. More disturbing than Goldman's lack of economic development knowledge is his heavy-handed approach. It was obvious from your coverage that he did not consult the property owners, merchants, realtors, customers, or commuters who use Carytown daily. Modern tactics in economic development focus on building community, supporting entreprenuership, and promoting stakeholder involvement. Carytown has proven the success of such strategy.

Goldman's simplistic proposal for cutting business license taxes in half is, to quote City Council President Bill Pantele, "not really an economic development strategy." As the former general manager of Toad's Place, the first (and still the only) retail endeavor on the Canal Walk, I can say that as we tried to get the project off the ground, my frustrations with the city had little to do with the tax structure and more to do with administrative indifference. Dozens of my calls to Goldman regarding our project went unreturned. Meanwhile, calls to Pantele were actually answered, meetings held, and action taken. Returned phone calls, a sales tax rebate for local start-ups, a streamlined permitting process, technical assistance with that process, and an economic development organization that does not lose paperwork would be far more helpful.

Economic and community development are long-term processes. Bill Pantele is the only candidate who has shown he understands economic development and has proven to be responsive to the community.

Jeffrey W. Sadler. Richmond.

Does Obama Remind Us of 'Change' Candidate?

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Manny Alvarez Jr. wrote an extremely articulate letter ["Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'"] as to why Barack Obama's platform should receive more thought-provoking questions.

I applaud Alvarez for coming to America and I hope it remains the country he sought. His experience chillingly outlines what might be in store for those who support change without question.

Frank Hale. Richmond.