Romney, Ryan have some explaining to do

Re: "What would Obama's second term look like?" Sept. 9

According to senior editorial writer Conn Carroll, if President Obama gets a second term, we would have "higher taxes, higher unemployment, more partisanship and more constitutional crises."

Other than that, an Obama second term will be great."

However, the voters still do not know what plan Republican nominee Mitt Romney has to fix the economy if he is elected president. On ABC TV's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," when running mate Paul Ryan was asked how would they would fix the economy, he said,"We have a framework and a plan, which we would discuss with Congress."

If I were Romney and Ryan, I would quickly explain our plan to lower taxes to the voters so they don't think that their "framework and plan" for the economy are a secret.

Cargill Kelly


Entire Biblical passage shows Rubio was right

Re: "Rubio incorrect about creation of national motto," From Readers, Sept. 6

I would like to provide some clarity regarding the use of a scriptural passage by Jim Montanye in his response to Sen. Marco Rubio's speech at the Republican convention.In referring to Matthew 13:12, Mr. Montanye would have us believe that"abundance" has todo withmaterial goods or money.Nothing could be further from the truth.

In explaining why he presented parables to the Pharisees in Matthew 13:11, Jesus tells his disciples: "... To you it has been given to knowthe secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given." Then in Matthew 13:12, He adds: "For to him who has more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away."

Given the completecontext, Matthew 13:12 augments, rather than undermines, Sen. Rubio's remarks.

Mike Browning


Real conservatives don't support No Child Left Behind

Re: "Virginia's not-so-great expectations," Local Editorial, Aug. 30

Your editorial is an example of how today's conservative movement takes a "heads I win, tails you lose" approach to public policy.

Imagine a supposedly conservative newspaper editorializing in favor of stringent new federal reporting requirements or complaining that half the states gutted an unfunded federal mandate's requirements.

Once upon a time, conservatives would have held that is half the states were resisting a federal requirement, it was evidence that the federal requirement lacked public support and warranted repeal.But conservatives like No Child Left Behind because, in trumping local control of education and state's rights, it provides a club to use on educators and their unions to improve educational quality.

Is it any wonder why so few take today's conservatives seriously, or why traditional conservatives are so tempted to look to the libertarians, even if they have to hold their noses while wading through all the pot smoke?

Dino Drudi