|
To the Editor:
Not long ago I sent the following letter to our members of Congress in Washington:
21st Century Citizens Bill of Rights for Congress
1. Senator and Representatives alike are elected to serve us, the people, as honorable and humble stewards of the public trust.
2. Any submitted bill before subject to a vote must be read in good faith in its entirety ending with some sense of understanding; hence, no insulting gamesmanship through use of a speed reader will be allowed, ever.
3. All pay raises by Congress voting “for” themselves is a conflict of interest. Hence, in future we the people will choose a Congressional pay advocate who will decide when and what increase, if any, is warranted.
4. A “want” is not a judicious need; learn to know the difference.
5. Air Force One is not some national toy to be used for media location staging; its use and deployment are not cheap; there is technology available called teleconferencing.
6. News conferences for executive branch should not become telethon-like in length nor media questions boxed-in by preselection.
7. Congress shall delete a Department Secretary or Cabinet or the appointed czar position. Growing our economy by increasing bureaucrats is not sound, but arrogant; learn not to insulate oneself by creating future scapegoats, accept reality that one doesn’t always get what they hoped for. Learn to accept failure, Lincoln did; and more than once.
8. Legislative time management is important and should be embraced with polite reverence. As footdragging tactics is just as disingenuous as is trying to fast track an issue, a bill at lightning speed.
For no one in their right mind citizen and elected member of Congress alike, can reason effectively with an emphatic time gun to their head.
Therefore, since we don’t buy cars, major appliances, electronics and homes under such pressure, neither should Congress conduct our business.
9. Criticism is not hate speech; unless one suffers from internal insecurity and/or tunnel vision, thereby self-reflection should be mandated.
10. All major bills will address one topic of concern, rather than be made into a sad saddled donkey peppered with pinned Congressional tails.
G. Dunbar Moomaw
Dahlgren
To the Editor:
Summertime wasn’t fun, without coming to Colonial Beach. Now for almost 20 years, been living here and loving it.
Makes me mad to see and have “out of towners and the newspapers” question our “wants” of “rules” to be followed. Rules are for safety of the area, not just visitors. Dogs and people uncontrolled is wrong. Adults should not disregard rules at anytime.
The littering is uncalled for: trash should go with the people or be placed in the proper containers. It’s a shame some people ruin it for everyone. Even our children are not able to enjoy our “Point” playground these days because of the wrong done by others. Go over to a beach in Calvert City, Maryland, and see the signs. They sure spell out the rules and fees you pay, but it is controlled and enjoyed. I hope we do not have to go that route, but if it helps keep the Beach and Town clean, safe and controlled, let’s try it in the right way. This past Sunday I was on the Boardwalk for four hours and I didn’t see any lack of people on the sand, in the water, or walking on the Boardwalk. Were the people just here to enjoy or to CRITICIZE the town people?
E. S. Whitestone
Colonial Beach
To the Editor:
We U. S. consumers pay extra for our goods and services because of costs thought required for adequate liability protection insurance. Business frequently pays for that protection which is significant and is ever increasing because of the manner liability charges are now handled, and not properly handled, in my opinion.
Liability charges mostly by far result in substantial awards without any legal involvement by the process of negotiated financial settlements. The agreed settlement is to the advantage to the plaintiff and his lawyer, and for the defence liability insurer. The liability defence company benefits by showing that successful suing needs no legal involvement, even for insubstantial charges, therefore major coverage is ever increasing - good selling point. Both sides gain by the atrocious modern suing process, almost exclusively in the United States of America.
The situation is so lucrative that there are more and more insurance companies, and more trial lawyers in our country, in particular. By having numerous advertisements and many “ambulance chasers” encouraging suing for almost anything by “no-charge” service, only part of the award. Occasionally, there is already the effort of the litigation lawyers to pay up front enough to satisfy the litigator so the award will belong to the lawyer only. The lawyer knows there is always big money.
The manipulation suing process has really worsened health care costs, such that some medical doctors and other healthcare providers are choosing drastic alternatives. Some are leaving their profession for other work. Some are going without liability insurance and allowing greatly reduced charges for services by telling patients there is little money in suing. Increasingly, some doctors are becoming employees at much lower income, but they need no suing protection.
I strongly believe that frivolous suits should be stopped and that new ways can do so. Laws needs to be established to allow a defendant to (at his request and payment) have a preliminary legal review. If the legal review finds insufficient evidence, the litigator will have to totally reimburse the defendant for all legal review costs. If the charge is found supportable, negotiated settlement can proceed, or the case go to court. The way suing is usually handled is not illegal, it is just outside any legal protection or abuse.
For any effective correction, new federal protection will require a successful bill in Congress. All legislators for such a bill will be in great jeopardy for reelection. The two most powerful industries know where their bread is buttered. The insurance industry and the legal profession (trial lawyers) and even the news media will fight any way they can.
The support for this proposal must be consumers of goods and services in the U. S., plus it would clear some of our poor image in other countries who do not have this problem. Using the health care cost problem could give this idea a big boost.
Howard Yarus
Dahlgren
 |
