 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Letters
Editor. As one who has worked around legislative halls for more than 50 years, I want to go on record as being vehemently opposed to both term limitations and a federal balanced budget amendment. Everyone knows that whether it's an individual or government you cannot spend more than comes in. Whether it is a family or government, there are crises which arise. If you have a family member who is seriously ill, money is no object. Getting the family member well is of paramount importance. The California earthquakes, fires and riots and the midwest summer floods are examples where great expenditures of monies had to be expended and which were not appropriated. The argument of those who oppose term limitations has normally been the ballot box, which is true. Democracy is predicated on the assumption that people have the intelligence to rule themselves. When we agree to term limitations or a constitutionally mandated balanced budget, we are in effect giving up our power at the ballot box. In reality we are saying that we are giving up some of our inherent powers of democracy. We assume we are not capable of doing what we know ought to be done so we are abdicating our right to vote. President Theodore Roosevelt is generally considered one of our greater presidents. But when he tried to run for what was considered at the time a third term in 1912, he was defeated. Conversely, his distant cousin Franklin Roosevelt was elected four times as president. John Quincy Adams went from the White House to become a long-time member of the House of Representatives. Rightly or wrongly, Ronald Reagan was on record that if he had not been prohibited by the 22nd amendment, he would have seriously considered running again in 1988. The people were prohibited from making that decision. By the adoption of term limitations we would not have had the sage advice of Sam Rayburn and Tip O'Neill or the experience of Barry Goldwater, Everett Dirksen or Henry M. Jackson.
William H. Perkins Jr.
Editor. Thank you for using my letter in the January Illinois Issues (page 7). As I am sure you are aware, there is a typo error as it appears in the magazine. I didn't think much about it until every time I am near the State House Complex someone asks about what I was trying to say. The point I wanted to make is that less than one-fourth of the banks along the Illinois River are leveed and this includes some levees maintained by the state of Illinois.
Again thanks for using my letter, and I hope you can clear up any confusion about my letter in the next issue.
F. John Taylor Readers: Illinois Issues regrets the error in Mr. Taylor's original letter. Editor
Editor. Your article on welfare in the February issue of Illinois Issues (page 12) should be required reading for every politician and taxpayer in the state of Illinois. It is absolutely criminal to make people try to live on less than the poverty level, yet we continue to hear people who want to blame the victims and not the political system that allows this situation to occur. In fact, your article "Lesson in funding education: Tell Mommy, 'It's not my fault'" (February 1994, page 32) says this beautifully (just add social welfare, mental health and health funding to education).
Keep up the good work of exposing the inadequacies of the political workings of the state of Illinois to the people of the state. I am often ashamed to find out that our state has lost out on federal funding of one type or another because the politicians don't only lack vision of the future — they can't see what's happening right in front of their noses.
Connie Shanahan
Readers: Your comments on articles and columns are welcome. Please keep letters brief (250 words); we reserve the right to excerpt them so that as many as space allows can be published. Send your letters to: March 1994/Illinois Issues/9
|