Former lawmaker urges support for steel tariffs

Former lawmaker urgessupport for steel tariffs
EDITOR:
I am a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives having served from 1977 to 1995 at which time I retired. During my tenure I was an active member of the House Steel Caucus, so I am very aware of the seriousness of losing our steel industry and the jobs to countries that practice unfair trade policies. However, the fault belongs to our government for failing to counter these policies. I implore President Bush to stand by his commitments to support steel tariffs just as former presidents have supported tariffs to protect commercial pottery, Harley-Davidson, etc., from unfair trade policies.
The president is aware that the International Trade Commission has recently issued a statement that the steel imposed tariffs do not significantly affect our national economy. In fact, fair tariffs help the economy of steel-producing communities as well as those communities that rely on steel in the production of automobiles, automobile parts, farm equipment, appliances construction and many others.
This nation cannot continue to export American jobs and expect to prosper by it. The steel tariffs now in place are starting to stabilize the American steel industry and jobs necessary to support families and communities.
We have no trade policy, and this is because the United States in the past has been able to dictate the terms of trade policy, and it has not always been in the best interests of the American people. Large corporations take advantage of Third World nations' low wages, little or no health care, no worker protection, little or no retirement benefits and no environmental standards by moving their plants and jobs to these countries.
I heard the president's address to the United Nations on Sept. 23, and I hope he shows as much compassion for the American worker and their families as he shows for the people of other nations, many of which have little regard for the United States. I again urge continued support for the steel tariffs.
DOUGLAS APPLEGATE
Brooksville, Fla.
XThe writer is a former Democratic representative from Columbiana County.
End steel tariffs now; theydo more harm than good
EDITOR:
Sept. 27's editorial, "End the Steel Tariffs," courtesy of the Washington Post, was right on the money. The article reiterated several points that I've been making since the tariffs were initiated in March of 2002.
President Bush's tariff program is a mistake, as the editorial indicated. With no offense intended to the Youngstown region, which has a proud history of steel production, the tariffs are supporting an inefficient industry. From overpriced union labor to outdated factories and outright mismanagement, the steel industry is grossly unable to compete in the global market.
Worse, it is the industry's own fault.
Why should consumers pay more for things made with steel, simply because the government wishes to prop up the inefficient, greedy steelmakers? Who will speak up about the job losses at companies who use steel to produce products?
The steel tariffs should be ended, effective immediately. Since steel no longer supports our region, we cannot afford to subsidize this failing industry.
JASON C. REEHER
Grove City, Pa.
There has to be a better wayto care for elderly neighborsEDITOR:
I am writing in regard to the Sept. 29 article "Police attend to elderly in need," specifically regarding an elderly Forest Park Drive woman.
The best thing that happened was for this woman's car to be found abandoned and for Boardman policeman Kim Kotheimer to finally come to the rescue.
Neighbors have been well aware of a sad situation for many years and have always come to this woman's aid when asked or needed. Sadly, she had no relatives in the area to check on her.
I have been told that a few of the mentioned agencies in the article had been contacted previously, but to no avail. I know most recent incidents were reported to the health department this past summer by a neighborhood doctor. When a caseworker appeared, the elderly woman would not allow the caseworker to enter her home. When concerned neighbors questioned as to why nothing was done again, they were then told by a caseworker, "Sorry, but if they won't let us in the house, there is nothing we can do about it."
I have been told this myself from another agency, after reporting a similar situation with an elderly woman who lived in a local motel, in much the same living conditions. She, too, would not let them enter and it was the same thing, "Sorry, nothing we can do."
I am then left wondering what these agencies are capable of doing? If an elderly person in a situation such as this really does need help and the police are the only ones who can gain access into the home, then shouldn't the agency contact the local police department so that the premises can be entered and living conditions can be checked?
What can we, as neighbors to the elderly, do when we call these agencies for help only to be told that there is nothing they can do?
Maybe an article a day or week featuring these individual agencies with explanations as to what they can and cannot do would be beneficial to the community as a whole.
If situations like these could be addressed in a timely manner, rather than letting years go by before the situation becomes increasingly and disgustingly worse, it would be much more beneficial not only to our elderly but to their neighbors as well.
I have only lived in my home on Forest Park Drive for less than two years. The neighbors are all kind, caring and helpful people. While this article was good to bring attention to concerns regarding elderly neighbors, I did not want it to be perceived that there was no concern in this neighborhood.
Also, I am disappointed that Patrolman Kotheimer was not mentioned in the article as being the hero in this particular situation. He should be commended for finally taking the situation into hand when no one else would.
CATHY ZIMMERMAN
Boardman
Concealed-carry debatebrings out safety concern
EDITOR:
In his column last Sunday, Mike Braun called attention to a recent situation in which a mother and child were robbed at gunpoint, saying that it "might have had a different outcome had she surprised the robber by pulling out her own handgun." The implication seemed to be that the bandit would either flee or be shot by his intended victim.
In the real world, someone who had practiced diligently might be able to get a gun out of a purse or concealed holster, click off the safety, aim and shoot in about two seconds. However, a robber who already had his finger on the trigger would need less than one second to recognize what was happening and open fire.
The most likely result: a funeral and a motherless child.
So much for the notion that a concealed-carry law would make us safer.
ROBERT D. GILLETTE
Poland