Earmarks should be curtailed for all
Yes, Long Island will lose those funds if earmarks go away ["Earmarks play a role,'' Editorial, Nov. 10], but what some fail to acknowledge is the benefit that could be achieved if earmarks all over the country disappear, too - the government is spending less.
That means one of two very positive things can result: 1) We spend less of the money that we don't have, lessening the debt load left for our kids; or 2) government can afford to tax us less, leaving us with more money in our pockets.
A side benefit would be that it makes it more difficult for politicians to buy votes. That seems like a good thing, too.
As I read your article on earmarks, I wondered, if we checked tax returns for the last five years, how many of our politicians gave $100 or more of their own money to one of the groups they give hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to?
It is easy to be generous with other people's money. Likewise, it is sad to read that some think that $9 billion (the earmark estimate) is less than 1 percent of federal spending and thus, not a big matter in terms of savings. We need to start looking at things in a new light.
Our citizens have responded to countless disasters with their hearts and wallets, but they are continually upset when they learn of politicians increasing spending on their own offices and on their own pet projects.
GM's stock offering's no reason for glee
I am sorry, but I cannot get excited by General Motors' initial public offering.
What about all the people who lost their jobs, stocks, dividends and retirement savings? Is this part of the federal stimulus plan?
Perhaps the federal government should mandate that anyone who owned stock in GM, and did not receive any compensation when it was taken over by the U.S. government, should be awarded shares of the new IPO at no cost. This process should be implemented with any company or bank that the U.S. government took over or gave aid.
Grisly cigarette pics are no deterrent
If $12 a pack won't get people to quit smoking, then a new picture on the pack sure won't ["New labels for smokes," Editorial, Nov. 12].
How about mangled dead bodies on every bottle of beer? Liquor has proved to be a greater threat to life and limb as witnessed almost every day in the pages of your newspaper.
It is time the "smoke police" turned their attention to liquor and its ravages on the American family.