In the April 7 article on the state capital budget ("Rendell Has Final Say on 'Pork Barrel' "), a spokesman for the Rendell administration claims only "rabid conservatives" oppose pork-barrel spending and that taxpayer-backed borrowing for sports stadiums and other projects is "good public policy."

We suspect that citizens of all political philosophies oppose corporate welfare and vote-buying by the governor. However, the notion that such spending is "good public policy" is not supported by the evidence. For example, nearly all the economic evidence indicates that taxpayer support of sports stadiums has no real economic benefits, but they certainly do benefit the bottom lines of team owners.

It is also clear that Gov. Ed Rendell's borrowing for "economic development" spending has not improved Pennsylvania's economic climate (the commonwealth is 38th in job growth, 40th in personal income growth and 42nd in population growth among the 50 states during his tenure). In fact, the evidence shows that states with high "economic development" spending are losing jobs and people to states that are instead reducing their overall tax burden.

Of course, the confusion for the Rendell administration may be that the Commonwealth Foundation defines "good public policy" as one that results in greater job creation and sustained private-sector economic development, not on generating invites to ribbon-cutting ceremonies and "political development" for lawmakers.

NATHAN A. BENEFIELD
Director of Policy Research
Commonwealth Foundation
Harrisburg

---

George F. Will claimed in his April 7 "Compassionate Conservatives" column that liberals contribute less to charitable giving and conservatives are therefore more generous and caring. The flaw in his assertion is so obvious as to question whether it is deliberate, given Mr. Will's reputation for astuteness.

I am sure it is true, as he reports, that conservatives give more to organizations with IRS nonprofit status, but most of these are anything but charitable -- starting with religion, which, he notes, is where the overwhelming difference between liberal and conservative giving resides. How much of church income goes to the needy as opposed to cathedrals and mega-churches, TV promotion, personal wealth of the evangelists and, in the case of some religions, a promise of wealth and well-being to their worshipers in this life as well as in the next?

What is charitable or compassionate about paying to belong to an organization for the services and benefits it provides to the giver -- uplifting weekly worship, important rites and rituals (baptism, marriage, communion, etc.), the camaraderie of a social club, counseling, community stature and, the ultimate selfish motive, one's own salvation?

Nor is there anything compassionate about donating to the symphony one loves to hear or to the art gallery one attends. This is again paying for what you get -- perhaps commendably civic-minded, but not charitable.

Equating such self-serving giving with altruism is poppycock propaganda -- just more conservative sugarcoating of the greed that keeps the wealthy getting wealthier while the poor fall further behind.

GEORGE McGEE
Marshall

---

I believe there should be an age limit for those vying for the presidency. We want to entrust the country's leadership to someone who is mentally healthy.

As we age, our minds age with us. Our memory and reflexes slow down. An example is Sen. John McCain on the blunder he made in stating that al-Qaida was receiving training in Iran and going back into Iraq ("McCain Gets the Extremists Mixed Up," March 19 "Trail Mix" column). He had to be corrected by Sen. Joe Lieberman. What other blunders will he make if he becomes president?

DOROTHY RICHARDS
Penn Hills

---

America makes history this November, electing either its first black, first woman or oldest president. Before voting, do one thing for your fellow Americans. Look back at our nation's birth, chronicled by the noted historian from Pittsburgh, David McCullough. Read either "John Adams" or "1776."

Read about a miraculous year of close calls that should have ended our Revolution any number of times in the six months after we declared independence. See how luck, weather and questionable British decisions helped our cause. Smile at how the inexperienced George Washington was able to maneuver a patchwork army with untrained officers against a vastly superior, professional force.

Rediscover John Adams. No American traveled more treacherous miles or spoke with greater conviction in the quest to win our liberty. Jefferson called him the "colossus of independence." Admire Adams' incredible wife, Abigail. Enjoy the language, wit and intelligence of their storied letters. Try to choke back the pride at the devotion this couple had to American freedom -- yours, mine and our children's.

They say we don't read anymore. Buck the trend. Revisit America's amazing birth. Then see if you can ever vote for the "dependence" peddled daily by two of the above candidates.

ROBERT SZYPULSKI
Penn Township

---

In his April 7 letter, Tom Hughes says people "have no right to fill up a public area with smoke ... period!" ("No Compromise"). I agree with a literal reading of that statement and support banning smoking in all publicly owned buildings. I strongly oppose a ban on smoking that would affect private establishments such as restaurants, bars and clubs.

These businesses are privately owned and the decision on whether to allow smoking is one only the owner should be able to make. If you do not want to be around cigarette smoke, go somewhere that does not allow it. If enough people stop patronizing places that allow smoking, simple economics will take over -- more nonsmoking places will start to emerge if there is a profit to be made. That is the right way to do it, not by violating private property rights.

DAVID WYMAN
West View

---

Letter writer Fred N. Bush ("Let It Wither," April 6) asserts that I can find a nonsmoking alternative to most any venue. I beg to differ. As a recent transplant from Michigan, I searched last fall for a smoke-free sports bar where I could watch a telecast of the Detroit Lions executing their weekly exercise in futility.

Alas, there was none to be found in the Pittsburgh area. It appears that with the speed at which the Pennsylvania Legislature is addressing the smoking ban, I will once again need to travel to Ohio this fall if I want to watch my beloved Lions in a smoke-free environment.

RICHARD M. SCHULTZ
McCandless

---

We welcome your letters. Please include your name, address and phone number, and send to Letters to the Editor, 34 Blvd. of the Allies, Pittsburgh 15222. E-mail letters to letters@post-gazette.com or fax to 412-263-2014. Letters should be 250 words or less, original and exclusive to the Post-Gazette. All letters are subject to editing for length, clarity and accuracy and will be verified before being published.