Forget the main hopefuls; Let's go with the Libertarian

Forget the main hopefuls;Let's go with the Libertarian
EDITOR:
Every four years, the people of the United States endure a farce called a presidential election. Of course, I agree that we are lucky indeed to have elections; some people don't. However, on close examination a case can be made that our quadrennial effort to choose a worthy executive does not actually accomplish anything. Nothing changes; nothing improves.
In these contests, with the connivance of the media, half the electorate is conditioned to believe its interests will be terribly hurt if "A" is elected, and the other half is propagandized to believe the same if "B" is chosen. For months everyone will work feverishly to support one and oppose the other.
After the election, what happens? Very little changes occur, as anyone with a sufficiently long memory realizes. This is going to be particularly true in 2004, as the two candidates are virtually twins.
As has been observed by more than one columnist, both are from generations of wealthy families, both attended Yale, and most significantly they are members of the same very elite and exclusive social fraternity. Whoever is elected, he will quickly be "briefed" on foreign and domestic policy by essentially the same "powers that be," to be sure that all policies continue as in the past, thus continuing the same fundamental and harmful errors.
And that explains why I will be voting in November for the Libertarian Party candidate for president, whoever he or she may be. The Libertarian candidate will not win, but as voters begin to appreciate the "party of principle" and begin to value a frugal government that follows the U.S. Constitution, the LP's vote total will enjoy steady and impressive increases, and the two older senile political parties will eventually have to adopt more and more Libertarian policies in order to win; a much to be desired change of direction!
And, who knows, we may someday even have a Libertarian president!
MILTON R. NORRIS
Canfield
It's time for Alan Greenspanto see what retirement is
EDITOR:
After all the time, money and loss of life we as a nation have spent in Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction, I have found the culprit right here in America and this WMD has a name: Alan Greenspan.
The Federal Reserve chairman has urged Congress to deal with the country's escalating budget deficit by cutting benefits for future Social Security retirees.
I have a better idea, why not take the guaranteed government pension benefits off all their employees That would pretty much eradicate the national debt. Then let them try to live their lives with the same pension that the Enron workers or all the other big money companies, including our beloved CSC and LTV, that have left our local workers with no job, no pension and no health benefits.
This ludicrous call for action from Congress is a slap in the face to all the working people in the United States. At a time when retirees should be in their so-called "golden years" they find that they will simply have to work until they die.
All I have to say to Mr. Greenspan is, retire.
WILLIAM J. HUNTINGTON
Youngstown
Good reasons to be labeleda naysayer in Austintown
EDITOR:
After reading the articles by Ian Hill about Austintown Township, I decided to write this letter in response. My definition of a naysayer is a person who makes a statement that a politician does not agree with -- a person who does not agree with a politician's decisions or principles.
The reason I think 6,209 people voted against the levy:
1. Residents think their taxes are already too high.
2. Trustees invoked home rule against the will of the people.
3. Trustees approved Centerpointe industrial park against the will of the residents of that area.
4. Trustees closed a fire station to save $6,000 but donated $5,000 to the Austintown Growth Foundation.
GARY BRANT
Austintown