Pro-Bush veterans are getting what they voted for
I write regarding the Feb. 22 article "Veterans Complain of Skimpy Funding." I am a veteran of the Korean War and a life member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Perhaps I have been out of touch with reality, but I can remember reading where George W. Bush promised many times in discussing budget cuts that veterans benefits would be one of the items looked at very carefully.

Considering his campaign statements I can't help but wonder if these veterans who are now complaining about the funding proposals of the Bush administration are the same ones who walked in lock-step supporting him during his presidential campaign. Are they the same ones who formed veterans committees for Bush and vociferously spoke out against his opponent?

Are these the same veterans who chose to support a man who did all he could to avoid active military service over a proven hero, who not only was wounded in mortal combat but went back two more times to get wounded again and again? Are these the same veterans who believed the outrageous lies spread by the Republican campaign committee in TV, radio and newsprint about John Kerry's alleged "self-inflicted wounds"?

Well, I, for one, did not believe the lies, but I did believe Bush's shaded campaign pledges to under-fund health care for veterans. I did not then and do not now support his efforts to place the burden of the deficit on the backs of veterans and working people of this country.

I'm sorry for all those who supported him and his platform and wish there were something that could be done about it, but as matters stand, with a Republican-controlled Congress, there's not much chance of change. God help those veterans who really need the care; our government doesn't seem to want to give it to them.

JAMES A. HAMMER
Hampton

---

Ingrates on parade
On Feb. 21, the front page of the Post-Gazette showed European demonstrators in Brussels carrying signs protesting the U.S. armed forces operations in Sudan 1998, Grenada 1983 and El Salvador 1980. I am sure there were signs designating other countries as well. But the sign that I bet is not anywhere in sight is the one that would say "Normandy, 1944."

What a bunch of hypocritical ingrates!

HOWARD S. SCHWARTZ
Squirrel Hill

---

A murky plan
I went to see Sen. Rick Santorum at the student union at Duquesne University last week ("Looking for Support: Santorum Finds Many Minds Made Up on Social Security," Feb. 22). I had not heard the president's plan for Social Security yet and thought the senator could shed some light on it. If that was the plan, it desperately needs reworking.

The senator used charts for the future projections that were pure guesswork. He did not use the charts that his own Congressional Budget Office, which employs real actuaries, has drawn up. They project that Social Security will not reach shortfall until 2052, not the 2042 the senator assures is the real date.

Then he tried to make us believe that we would own our accounts, which would be converted to annuities at age 65. Until age 65 sounded good if our investments did well. At that point the annuity would kick in. What the senator did not seem to know was how annuities work.

He said we would all buy an annuity from an insurance company at age 65. Annuities have seven options. The highest payout is the lifetime annuity. He was saying we would take the joint and survivor option. With neither of these options do we own that money. The lifetime contract reads that you will receive income until you die, no matter how long you live. If you live to be 100, you win. But if you live only another month, or just one day, the insurance company keeps the rest. The same thing happens with the joint and survivor option, except you get a smaller payout, and when the second of you dies, the insurance company keeps the rest. Where is the ownership in the scenario?

Also his ideas of where we would get the dollars to fund the privatization scheme were fuzzy to say the least. The president's plan as introduced by Sen. Santorum definitely needs help.

BARBARA DICKMAN
Delmont

Editor's note: The writer is a stockbroker.

---

Arena on Fifth
A friend with whom I was having lunch one day had the best idea for the Fifth and Forbes corridor that I've heard yet. He said to tear it down and put the new arena there. What a great thought! It could easily be accessed by the T and Port Authority buses. There are parking garages throughout the city and parking in Station Square. It could be designed like PNC Park with adjoining restaurants, bars and sporting goods stores. They could even add office space and offer discounts to those companies wishing to purchase a luxury box.

Most of the city's hotels are located in town and a shuttle could be offered for those who still park up at the existing arena. Imagine the possibilities if the new casino were to be located at Station Square. This is what this city really needs to get jump-started. The Fifth and Forbes corridor is horrid looking and getting worse daily.

But our local politicians would rather spend your tax dollars on consultants and developers year after year with no change in sight. With Mayor Tom Murphy on his way out, this would be a great campaign builder for the other candidates in the race. I just wish one of them had been seated next to us at lunch that day; he could have paid for my friend's lunch and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars earmarked for another consulting disaster.

BRAD A. EGGERT
Whitehall

---

Unreal increases
In your Feb. 16 editorial on property assessments ("Scrap the Caps"), you emphasize accurate assessments. The latest figures indicate a 20 percent increase in assessments in three years (in a majority of areas). It is impossible for market value of property to increase 20 percent in three years.

Until we have accurate assessment figures, Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato has no choice but to implement the caps.

Your editorial should have been about scrapping property taxes, not scrapping caps.

EDMUND POPIDEN
Stowe

---

In praise of Onorato
I want to add my voice to those praising Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato for his decision to cap property taxes. My wife and I recently began to look for a home here in Allegheny County. As professionals in our 20s we have many thousands of dollars in school debt and little disposable income, factors that make county property taxes tremendous obstacles to owning a home.

In the nine years since I've moved to Pittsburgh I've heard a lot of talk about the flight of twentysomethings from the region, but I've seen little action. This is the first time I can recall seeing someone do something to make homeownership affordable for the middle class.

It's about time.

MICHAEL JON BERQUIST
Pine

---

We need to start working on the achievement gap at an earlier age
I along with other educators find the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education's decision not to renew Superintendent John Thompson's contract very troubling. One of the reasons for this decision is the continuing racial achievement gap. The district's exceptional programs and its hard-working teachers are trying to eliminate this achievement gap. Perhaps we are not starting early enough.

As a young first-grade teacher, I remember thinking that much of my students' success in school was determined by what happened to them before they started school. Studies supported by the Packard Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York later showed the importance of early interaction between parents and infants. From the ages of 0 to 3, it is crucial that parents and caregivers hold, talk to and play with their babies and young children. They must expose them to as many learning activities as possible. These connections must be used repeatedly to become permanent and enable a child to later master language and other skills. A child who rarely has interaction with his or her parents, a child who is seldom spoken to or played with may have difficulty later in reading and language skills and with social interactions with others.

The district's pre-kindergarten and Head Start programs are excellent, but children under 3 years of age are not included. Perhaps all of those involved in the education of our children -- the family, the schools and the government -- should look more closely at the 0 to 3 age group. Social and economic conditions such as children in poverty must be taken into consideration. Education starts at birth, and the parents are the first and most important teachers. The achievement gap must be addressed, and schools have to bear some of the responsibility. But it is crucial for parents to understand the decisive role they play in the education of their children.

LINDA P. McDOUGALD
Stanton Heights

Editor's note: The writer is a retired Pittsburgh Public Schools librarian.