GOP should compromise with ‘cut neutral’ amendments Re: “No guts, no glory: GOP should heed lesson of ’91,” March 7
Why don’t the House Republicans introduce the $60 billion spending reduction bill and allow voting only on any amendments that are “cut neutral”? Any amendment proposing restoration of some funding must be balanced with a proposed cut in spending somewhere else.
That way, in fairness, some Democratic amendments could and should be accepted as long as $60 billion in total spending cuts is maintained.
Ralph Hitchcock
Springfield
It’s already time for mayor, council chairman to go
Re: “Another scandal, another day in D.C.,” March 6
Let me get this straight: Within the past two months, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray and Council Chairman Kwame Brown:
* Supposedly agreed to a quid pro quo for a former candidate;
* Approved exorbitant salaries for political cronies and their children;
* Approved the leasing of two SUVs at astronomical costs;
* Announced that Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute would provide the council with ethics advice.
Both of the aforementioned individuals campaigned on the promise to end politics as usual, but cronyism and nepotism are alive and well within this present administration. At some point, the citizens of this great city must realize that enough is enough. Brown’s overture to Georgetown would have had more merit had it been done immediately after the election, not on the heels of a myriad of “missteps,” in the words of the mayor.
To my fellow D.C. residents, I propose starting an initiative to recall both. We cannot afford four more years of this.
Marvin E. Adams
Washington
Canada is already slipping down that slope
Re: “Slippery slope logic doesn’t work here,” From Readers, March 3
Matt Virgile dismisses Gregory Kane’s argument that Maryland’s legalization of so-called “gay marriage” will lead to polygamy. He believes Kane’s argument is rooted in “homophobia,” not hard evidence.
Clearly, he has not heard of a court case that could end Canada’s polygamy ban. The plaintiffs argue that limiting marriage to just two people is bigoted. This view is echoed by Utah polygamist Marlyne Hammon, who said: “If Canada were to drop that law, it would send quite an important message out to the world. They can see [polygamy] is not what everyone says. It’s about people. … We want to continue fighting for our civil rights.”
Doesn’t Ms. Hammon sound eerily similar to “gay marriage” supporters?
For those still skeptical about widespread polygamy in America, remember that we once scoffed at any state having Canadian-style “gay marriage.” No one is scoffing now.
Frederick D. Weaver
Washington
