Spending limits might help raise quality of candidates

Spending limits might help raise quality of candidates
EDITOR:
I agree wholeheartedly with Bertram de Souza's article last week regarding the election. There is a disturbing trend in local elections where candidates who have a flimsy r & eacute;sum & eacute; (Mr. de Souza's words) are the recipient of huge sums of money, much of it from outside of our community, and basically buy elections. Capri Cafaro and John McNally were hardly qualified for the important positions they are seeking, but as de Souza correctly points out, with enough money you can purchase a public office.
Perhaps there should be campaign spending limits. In that way we can elect people who have served our community, not the one who has the most gold. The recent history of Mahoning County politics suggests that people are winning elections who do not serve the community well. An uninformed electorate, combined with the large sums of money, make for bad government and incompetent officeholders.
The low voter turnout has sent their message loud and clear. They do not care.
CONNIE COLOUTES
Poland
Fixing education fundingwith Problem Solving 101
EDITOR:
After the failure of all the area school levies, I knew what was coming next. We all did. The threats to punish us recalcitrant voters by charging the kids for sports and extracurricular activities. This tactic is used by so many school boards that it got me thinking. "Maybe there is some validation to the idea that I'm overlooking."
And guess what? Once I got past the hang-up of viewing sports and other extracurricular activities as part of the whole "educational experience" I began to see some of the merit. In fact, I now see that the schools can ease their way out of a bad financial situation without having to deal with a bunch of unappreciative voters at all. They could incrementally start levying charges on various aspects of the schooling process. If you have to pay to play, why not charge a small fee for the use of the actual facility such as the gym or stadium. And for that matter there's no reason not to charge a nominal fee to use the other facilities as well. I mean we already charge for the food in the cafeteria. Why not make it takeout and charge to actually eat the food in the cafeteria? Look at the textbooks; they get a lot of wear and tear. Instead of getting them for free, why not a small usage charge? And the same goes for the actual classroom. Why shouldn't its cost be offset slightly as well? The possibilities are endless.
We don't have to make abrupt changes to the way we fund our schools. We could satisfy the dictates of the Ohio Supreme Court, which has ruled our current funding method illegal, and take away the unbearable burden placed on our legislators by just slowly adopting this new funding idea. Slowly, step by step, our method of paying for education will evolve into something completely new. Of course as this evolution nears its completion, we'll have to call it something new as well. Let's see ... Let me think ... I've got it! How about "private education."
But wait, what about all the people who won't be able to afford the costs? Hmmm, I know, we'll start a program to help them with the costs. We'll call it ... Hold on it's coming to me. We'll call it a "voucher program."
So you see? With a little innovation and boldness, any problem can be solved.
DANIEL MOADUS Jr.
Girard
Oil, White House don't mix
EDITOR:
Can't anyone stop the Bush administration from driving up the price of gasoline? They keep buying oil and putting it in the U.S. oil reserve out West. This has been driving up the price of gasoline. On top of that, they are making the U.S. taxpayers pay the highest price ever for the crude oil they are putting in the reserve.
The reserve was designed to be filled when the price of oil was low. Then it was to be released when the price was high to drive down the price of gasoline. Instead, ex-oilmen Bush and Cheney have been doing the opposite.
Why did we ever elect these oilmen to office?
DON ROWINSKY
Youngstown