Earthquake Assistance

* In response to “Someone Has to Say It: We Need a Tax,” Commentary, Jan. 27:

I agree with Catherine O’Neill’s contention that California has to come up with some money now if it expects Congress to go along with the President’s promises on quake relief. Maybe this even requires a temporary tax.

I can’t let stand O’Neill’s castigation of the citizenry for throwing politicians out who suggest raising taxes, or her scorn for spineless (but only Republican spineless) politicians. With all the obvious waste in Sacramento and Washington, do you suppose the voters have figured out that wasteful spending is a big problem and more tax dollars will only cause more runaway spending? Is it possible that voters notice that temporary taxes and fees have a way of becoming permanent?

Please inform O’Neill that the percentage of national income going to government is on a long-term up-trend, approaching 50% by some estimates. California is one of the highest tax states in the union. Maybe the citizens don’t understand why government, in a crisis like the quake, can’t do what citizens do in a personal crisis--reorder priorities and temporarily reduce spending elsewhere.

WILLIAM BRADSHAW

San Diego

* Earthquakes may not be predictable but the cry for more taxes certainly is! And here’s O’Neill to tell us that “we need a tax” when, on the front page of the very same issue is the revelation “Millions in Earthquake Safety Funds Unspent”! If there is any wonder why many of us are resistant to more taxes, it’s because of the repeatedly confirmed suspicions that the money raised will be unspent, misspent, misappropriated, “skimmed” or otherwise misused. Well, the $376 million is about half of the money O’Neill wants for quake recovery. All she has to do is figure out how to get it.

RICHARD A. DAVIDSON

Sylmar

* May I suggest two ways to help eliminate the fraud in relief lines due to the earthquake? One--nearly every person carries some type of identification, such as a driver’s license, that shows the address of the person. This can prove whether the person lives in the endangered area. Two--why not use the system used by most theme parks to stamp the back of the hand with a substance that can’t be washed off? This will prevent cheaters from applying at more than one station.

SAM FISCHER

Laguna Hills

* Is it any wonder that more and more people are turned off by their elected officials? Fourteen California Republican members of Congress failed to sign a letter sent by the delegation asking President Clinton to provide quick financial aid for quake victims (“Quake Financing--Let’s Get Real,” editorial, Jan. 27). Their spokesman, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), used the occasion to attack non-earthquake issues, like immigration.

How many of those 14 Republicans would have been first to sign such a letter had their districts been severely hit? When will these so-called “leaders” stop being such ideologues and deal with the merits of issues? But I digress and ask too much of them.

LLOYD B. DENNIS

Redondo Beach

* After having suffered through riots, floods and fires, Southern California has now been struck by a devastating earthquake. No one denies the urgent need for help, nor the federal government’s duty to provide it, but while President Clinton stands ready to extend it, Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) asks that arrangements be made to pay for it.

How does Dole propose to do that? By slightly raising taxes on the wealthiest in our society who can best afford it? Certainly not! By doing away with lingering tax-shelter loopholes that result in millionaires paying less in taxes than working people? Out of the question! No, what the senator proposes is that emergency aid be paid for by government spending cuts elsewhere. But where? Certainly not by cutting military expenditures. Of course we know the senator’s answer: cut entitlements. Reduce welfare payments, Medicaid, food stamp programs.

Is the public really willing to go along with that? The duty of neighbors to help neighbors in need is deeply rooted in American tradition going back to the days of the frontier. But now, in modern times, when an emergency arises, should we continue the more recent traditions of the Reagan-Bush years to let the poorest, the neediest in our society pay for it, or will we rise to the notion of the new Administration that we should all pay our fair share, realizing that “fair” must at least to some extent be determined by ability to pay?

HARRY G. SHAFFER

Professor Emeritus, Economics

University of Kansas

Lawrence, Kan.

* Dole didn’t ask to cut other programs when leading the vote to war in the Mideast. Hey Bob, California has oil too, plus taxpayers.

KEN JOHNSON

Pinon Hills