The Limbaugh Debate: Logical or Slanted?
The article "Limbaugh's Logical Laziness,'' Aug. 1, may be a convenient stance for a liberal academic out of touch with the real world. Mr. Limbaugh is sometimes hard to take, but who else is showing the public what the administration is doing to school lunches, welfare reform, Medicare, tax reform, and Hillary's attempt to socialize health care while building a huge bureaucracy?
With a few exceptions, the newspapers and television networks have consistently failed to report the facts uncovered initially by Limbaugh. I believe that is the source of his appeal to many people. Limbaugh is performing a valuable service.
Robert W. Saunders Camano Island, Wash.
The author is to be commended for his astute application of logic to America's national radio phenomenon: Rush Limbaugh. I initially wondered whether the author would be so kind as to favor us with a book on the persuasive logic used by Al Gore and Bill Clinton, the American Civil Liberties Union, or certain notable defense attorneys. But it seems clear that the logical and moral high ground may not equate with the profitable, as he has chosen to ride Mr. Limbaugh's popular - and lucrative - coattails.
Wm. L. Protzmann Irvine, Calif.
While I certainly don't approve of Messrs. Dorrance and Dingman surrendering their citizenship to avoid paying taxes, Sen. Max Baucus calling them moochers is a gross aspersion (opinion-page article "Make Monied 'Moochers' Pay," July 25).
These two men and their companies have paid income taxes all along on their salaries and any capital gains. Not only that, if they were paid dividends from their companies, they paid income tax twice - first in the income tax their corporations paid and second, at the personal level on the dividends when they received them.
I have an idea where Senator Baucus can make up the $200 million that we taxpayers are losing each year. The federal government should charge ranchers market rates to graze on federal land, stop subsidizing water for farmers, and charge mining companies market rates for mineral rights on federal lands. We could make up that $200 million shortfall from Montana alone.
David Sugimoto San Antonio, Texas
The article misses the point. Wealthy Americans flee the country because of outrageous tax rates.
Why do we continue to punish success and achievement in this country? The author labels these people as "greedy, unpatriotic people." I think this label better fits legislatures who continue to confiscate and redistribute wealth. For the record, I make much less than $50,000 a year. When will this be considered "wealthy"?
Paul D. Ritchey Lexington, N.C.
The trappings of street barriers
The article "Gates in Dayton Fortress a Diverse Neighborhood," July 31, covers many, but not all, of the issues associated with street barriers.
First, while the Five Oaks neighborhood has benefited from street barriers, the results have been mixed in other cities. Los Angeles has closed several streets, but street gangs have used the barriers to trap unwary motorists.
Second, while neighborhoods with street barriers may experience a reduction in crime and traffic, the unwanted activity often moves to adjacent neighborhoods. While no conclusive judgment has been made that street barriers are completely effective, there is no denying that a trend toward private gate communities and barriers on public streets exists.
The Five Oaks neighborhood is perhaps the best-known example of this trend, but Bridgeport, Conn., and many cities in southern California have also followed suit.
Mark C. Jones Oxford, Ohio
Your letters are welcome. For publication they must be signed and include your address and telephone number. Only a selection can be published and none acknowledged. Letters should be addressed to "Readers Write" and may be sent by mail to One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, by fax to 617-450-2317, or by Internet E-Mail (200 words maximum) to OPED@RACHEL.CSPS.COM.