When my Monitor arrives, one of the first things I look at is the Danziger cartoon. Usually, I appreciate his quirky sense of humor. However, he hit a disappointing note with the July 1 depiction of Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh as peddlers of hate.
I have read both of Mr. Limbaugh's books, and I listen to his radio program, watch his television show, and subscribe to his letter. He does not preach hate. You may not always agree with his point of view, but he advocates pursuing facts not covered by mainstream television and the liberal press, which I find refreshing. Ruth Swartz, Cherry Hill, N.J.
Cartoon Unfairly Maligns Rush Limbaugh
I cannot speak about the Rev. Mr. Falwell's video, but I can guarantee that there is not one iota of hate in Rush Limbaugh's books. Mr. Limbaugh obviously is critical of Bill Clinton's futile liberal policies and lack of character. He also makes fun of some of the Clintons' activities, as do many comedians; their statements and activities invite comments. But to hate is not in Limbaugh's character. He is no doubt one of the most positive voices in the media today, inspiring his audience to achieve the highest standards in character and productivity. Robert Brown, Arroyo Grande, Calif.
Share the wealth, spread the taxes
The article ``Keep Congress Focused on Capping Entitlement Spending,'' June 30, objects to treating tax expenditures as a kind of entitlement that should be reduced as part of any entitlement reform and recommends cutting entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security as a means of cutting the budget deficit. The author is at odds with the General Accounting Office, which recommends cutting tax expenditures - defined as preferential provisions in the tax code such as exemptions and exclusions from taxation, deductions, credits, deferrals, and preferential rates, and which currently total $400 billion a year. Since the author was a member of both the Reagan and Bush administrations, it is easy to see why he opposes cutting tax expenditures: It might require sacrifice by the rich and special-interest groups.
An article in the July issue of The National Times calls our present tax system the ``privileged person's tax law,'' defining it as ``a system that is rigged by members of Congress and the executive branch. A system that caters to the demands of special-interest groups at the expense of all Americans. A system that responds to the appeal of the powerful and influential and ignores the needs of the powerless. A system that thrives on cutting deals and rewarding the privileged. A system that permits those in office to take care of themselves and their friends.''
I do not disagree with reducing entitlements as long as everyone shares in the pain. Why shouldn't the rich and special-interest groups do their part in reducing the budget deficit? Why should they get out of paying their fair share of taxes by continuing these tax loopholes? Why should ``tax expenditures'' stay off the agenda? Let's not be duped by conservative double talk. Joseph Golden, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Let the punishment fit the crime
In regard to the editorial ``Caning, American Style,'' July 6: I have not heard a solution to the graffiti problem that fits the problem.
It seems to me that requiring the vandal to remove the graffiti or take other appropriate steps to restore the vandalized property to its original condition would be a more fitting procedure. If the property cannot be restored, the vandal should earn the money to replace it. This would be both a powerful message and a sensible and constructive one. This idea could also serve as a solution to littering and other destructive acts.
If vandals are caned or subjected to some other violent punishment, taxpayers still have to pay to have the damage repaired. Marjorie Foster, Mayfield, Mich.