Gov. Rendell continues to support the arts

Rob Rogers' June 24 "Brewed on Grant" cartoon put a much-needed spotlight on what is at stake in the ongoing state budget battle by showing Rosie the diner waitress fuming with Mattress Factory founder Barbara Luderowski over the proposed elimination of all arts funding.

While those characters' appreciation for the value of the arts to every Pennsylvanian was heartening, I need to point out that their indignation was misdirected to Gov. Ed Rendell.

In my years as an appointee of three governors on the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts -- two Democrats and a Republican -- I can verify that Gov. Rendell has been a steadfast arts supporter since the beginning of his administration. Despite this year's economic crisis, he has worked very hard to fund the council and related programs with only a modest decrease. Given the $3.2 billion deficit we face in this budget year, the governor's plan, with a one-half percent tax increase that expires in three years, maintains reasonable support for the arts and protects the thousands of jobs, local spending and tax revenues generated by the arts sector.

That can't be said about the state senators who unsuccessfully tried to pass a budget bill that eliminated all state funding for the arts and the state arts agency, as well as many significant programs in health, public education (especially libraries and early childhood learning centers) and human services. This is an unprecedented effort that ignores long-term economic and quality-of-life benefits.

To voice your support for these valuable programs, contact your state legislator through the www.legis.state.pa.us Web site.

CAROL BROWN
Vice Chairman
Pennsylvania Council on the Arts
Shadyside

The writer is the founder and former president and CEO of the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust.

---

I share her concerns

I am in agreement with Joanne Tegethoff ("Our Medical Future," June 26 letters) that our health-care system is the best in the world. I also know firsthand that Dr. Ivan Tarkin is a remarkable surgeon with a wonderful beside manner. After falling on the ice in January of this year and breaking my wrist, I was fortunate enough to have Dr. Tarkin as my surgeon.

I feel very lucky that I have access to the UPMC Health System and its excellent staff of doctors. I am also wary of "universal health care" and yet another government-controlled agency.

SHERYL JOHNSON
Churchill

---

A public benefit

This is in response to the June 26 letter "Our Medical Future." Am I missing something here? Joanne Tegethoff wrote that her 84-year-old mother recently had surgery and insinuated that she would have been turned down or given substandard care under a "universal health plan." What does she think Medicare is? Or does her mother not need Medicare coverage to meet her needs?

My 92-year-old mother is in her fourth year of kidney dialysis. She lives with my family since she cannot live on her own, and even if she could, her medical expenses eat up most of her monthly income. Medicare has paid for most of her care (a self-paid Medigap policy helps with the rest) including a variety of expensive procedures such as angioplasty, femoropopliteal bypass surgery and surgery for a broken hip -- just to name a few -- with never a single denial or delay. And now she has Plan D to help with expensive medication costs for which she has no other coverage.

Under Medicare she can go to virtually any hospital or doctor in the country and has. I can't say the same about my UPMC coverage. Needless to say, without Medicare my mother would no longer be with us.

Today there are so many people who never dreamed they would be without health insurance or whose sky-high deductibles and copays make them neglect their medical needs.

While you are thanking God for your good fortune, maybe you could ask for help for the unemployed and uninsured person who has just been bankrupted by a catastrophic health condition, even if that help comes in the form of a public plan.

GINNY OAKS
North Strabane

---

Macho posturing

I agree with Larry Oswald of Sewickley who wrote the Post-Gazette concerning purposely loud motorcycles ("Quiet the Choppers," June 23 letters).

A few years ago, many state representatives were aggressively mobilized to repeal the helmet laws, including state Sen. John Wozniak from my town. Why can't they display even half the energy to have noise laws enforced? Maybe it's because many, like Mr. Wozniak, also ride motorcycles.

Moreover, maybe this is part of the reason the police seem disinterested in enforcing the noise laws. Sounds like selective enforcement of the law.

If I punch a hole in the muffler of my car to make a lot of noise, it wouldn't take long for me to be cited, but if I'm on a bike making the same noise, it's fine. Like a lot of people, I am not, nor have I ever been remotely interested in owning a motorcycle nor am I fascinated with them in any way.

At the same time, I have no problem with and applaud those who ride quiet bikes. But the reasons for purposely making your bike incredibly loud are beyond me. Some would respond it's done for safety reasons, which is hogwash. I think it's more for adolescent, macho "look at me" posturing.

Recently, while in my car, I was behind an ungodly loud Harley on which the rider displayed a sticker proclaiming "loud pipes save lives." Of course, this Einstein wasn't wearing a helmet, which means the irony of this juxtaposition was lost on him. Get over yourselves and follow the law. Get rid of loud bikes!

RICHARD ADAMS
Johnstown

---

Disruptive bikes

It's sad that noise plays so prominently in present-day motorcycling. For some riders it's a way to act out with antisocial behavior, but for most it's the adrenaline and dopamine spikes caused by excessive decibels, the same decibels that disrupt daily routines and cause stress to millions during peak riding months.

Based on residents' constitutional right to peaceful enjoyment of their property, Congress long ago instituted the Noise Control Act, part of which requires a tested, labeled exhaust system on all street-use motorcycles manufactured after 1982. Most aftermarket exhaust systems are far from meeting any reasonable standard and the very act of installing them constitutes a tampering violation.

In spite of the fact that a growing list of communities use the federal code for enforcement (recently Denver, Colo., Myrtle Beach, S.C., and soon New York City), the noise free-for-all continues.

Maybe it will be safety issues that finally compel motorcyclists to obey the law. The Hurt Report and a more recent European motorcycle crash study both indicate that loud, custom bikes are overrepresented in crash data.

JEFF BENTLEY
South Park

---

Recycling bags, not taxing them, is the right course

Another new tax is hardly a "realistic solution" for dealing with litter, as your editorial suggests, especially in the middle of a recession ("Trashed by Bags: A Tax Is More Palatable Than the U.N.'s Ban," June 23).

Consumers may choose plastic carryout bags because they are convenient, and importantly, that choice results in significantly less waste than paper bags. From an environmental standpoint, taxing plastic grocery bags is a step backward: People simply switch to paper bags and then buy additional plastic bags because they no longer have free grocery bags to reuse at home.

Plastics don't belong in our oceans -- they belong in the recycling bin. The vast majority of communities that have looked at this issue have determined that recycling and litter prevention programs are the way to go, not a new tax.

Pittsburgh shoppers today can bring their reusable bags to stores, reuse plastic carryout bags at home and/or return extra plastic bags to supermarkets for recycling (along with dry cleaning bags, newspaper bags and plastic wraps from paper towels, bathroom paper, bread and cases of soda).

Reduce, reuse, recycle -- that's a lot more "realistic" than another tax.

SHARI JACKSON
Director
Progressive Bag Affiliates
American Chemistry Council
Arlington, Va.

---

Can't wait to respond to our letter writers? Go to community.post-gazette.com/blogs.

---

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.