www.roanoke.com

Kaine's tax plan is unfair to Virginia drivers

Gov. Tim Kaine's transportation plan is unfair and ill conceived, ("Kaine says more taxes necessary to fix highways," May 13 news story). He proposes to increase the vehicle sales tax and registration fees instead of raising the tax on gas.

People who drive on roads must pay for the wear and tear they inflict, which is directly proportional to the weight of the vehicle. An 18-wheeler causes 1,000 times greater damage to roads than a car.

Thus, a fair and logical way to generate revenue for road maintenance is to increase the gas tax. You use and you pay; it is fair and square. When the gas tax is raised, those who drive monstrous pickup trucks, truck-based SUVs and cars will pay more than those who drive small cars and hybrids.

The problem with the governor's plan is that everybody who buys and registers a vehicle pays the same. Two drivers buying identical vehicles, one driving 5,000 miles and the other 25,000 miles per year, would pay the same sales tax and fees, although the latter would have left five times greater carbon footprint and damage to the road. This punishes people who drive fuel-efficient vehicles and drive less.

Overseas aid is needed here

I feel very sorry for the people in Myanmar and other countries who suffer from natural disasters. I feel a lot of sympathy for them not having a home, clean drinking water, medicine or hope. But there are a lot of human beings here in America who should be getting all that money our government, controlled by George Bush, feels like sending out.

What about us? What about all the U.S. citizens here at home, this country called America? Does anyone know or care about all the homeless in our country? How about all the Americans who can't afford health care or food? Does our government care about us?

Well, let's just keep sending more money to Myanmar. Oh, and don't forget to spend more money on Iraq.

Obama was slow to distance himself

Regarding Herb Detweiler's letter about Sen. Barack Obama ("Obama needed a quick dismissal," May 15):

Yes, a quick dismissal would've been appropriate. Follow along as we take another poll. Let's see a show of hands of people who attend a church or synagogue. OK.

Now let's see a show of hands of people who would attend that same church or synagogue for 20 years listening to its leader spew sermons of hatred and divisiveness without realizing it. OK, I see one hand.

Now let's see a show of hands of people who would be friends with a domestic terrorist who admitted to blowing up government buildings and whose only remorse was that he didn't do more damage. OK, I see one hand back in the corner.

Sir, we can't see who you are. Would you mind coming out into the light? Senator Obama, it is certainly a pleasure to have you at our little gathering. Since you're here, now we can get on to the really important stuff.

Yes, a quick dismissal would've been appropriate. Not one that took 20 years to make, and only then when his political future was on the line.

Creation arguments ignore the key: the Bible

After reading David W. Clark's article "God is the basis of morality" (May 7 commentary), which expands on Richard Dawkins' commentary "Earthlings and the Gods" (April 24), I was not impressed with either. A key piece of this big puzzle was overlooked by both writers. It's the Holy Bible.

Notice that the great scientists and philosophers of our day seem to question each other's theories all the time, trying to explain scientifically and morally the big bang theory, natural selection, laws of thermodynamics and on and on, but never coming up with any solid answers. We wonder why. The Bible explains it all: "How many your works are, oh Lord! All of them are full of your productions."

Can Roanoke council have a do-over?

Can we afford Alvin Nash on our city council? If Roanoke will have to forgo the chance at $500,000 per year in housing grants while he serves, isn't that too expensive? Can we afford that type of service?

Is his opinion on council that valuable? (Or is it just desirable from a political standpoint?) Why can't the appointment be rescinded based on the conflict of interest? Please, let city council know that this is no more acceptable than the charge card issue.

But what is Pelosi's promised plan?

J.B. Mixon's letter regarding the Democrats' shortcomings certainly has stirred a hornet's nest of liberal indignation ("Democratic Congress has failed families," May 5).

It almost appears that at least five of the residents of our area have gotten together and written letters that look like they were composed by a committee, and all of them have completely missed the point of Mixon's letter.

If those individuals would re-examine the letter, they'd note that Mixon said that two years ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to announce "a common-sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices." Folks, we haven't heard or read one word of that plan. What is it? When will the Democrats announce it? We'd all love to know what it is.

Please focus on what people are writing and then address that, not something else.

Now you need it, now you don't

Now, all of a sudden, The Roanoke Times editorial staff questions whether it makes sense to build an amphitheater at all ("For amphitheater, it's not about location," May 13 editorial). This included whether it's a wise use of limited taxpayer dollars.

Only now has The Times stumbled onto this question despite the long, well-known history of the civic center losing millions of taxpayer dollars. This editorial epiphany comes months after the paper arrogantly lectured readers that the amphitheater -- "which can only be good for Roanoke" -- "must" be built "in the best interest of the city" to up Roanoke's "cool quotient" ("Forward motion on Roanoke amphitheater," Nov. 18, 2007, editorial).

Let's see, first declare that the amphitheater must be built, then only later ask whether it should be built. The editorial staff is renowned for bloviating before thinking. This is another case and serves to illustrate why the shallow and silly reasoning that typifies Times editorials is routinely ignored by readers and voters.

The Grand Old Party's over for conservatives

Are there any conservatives remaining in Congress? How about a few Republicans willing to stand on principle? Nope. They're all hiding under their desks. Spineless, embarrassing, fundamental lack of leadership.

Those of us on the right may be better off sitting out the upcoming general election. Perhaps we should take a stand focusing on rebuilding the conservative movement, understanding full well the consequences that are before us for at least the next four years regardless of who the president-elect is.

I used to be a proud Republican, but have come to the conclusion I'm far too conservative for that party.