Feds should pay for BRAC improvements Re: “BRAC exposes failure of local government ‘planning,’ ” Local Editorial, March 16
Under your critical commentary, local governments and taxpayers who had no say in federal BRAC decisions should pay for the massive road improvements necessitated by those decisions. Local governments did not create these problems and do not have the funds to fix them.
For your information, all county roads in Virginia are owned, improved and maintained by the Commonwealth. They already collect taxes that are supposed to pay for road improvements. Even with money in the bank, it can easily take 10 years to design and complete a road project in Virginia.
Where is the money being saved by the federal government from the BRAC moves? It is certainly not being used to fix the problems they created. These are simply unfunded federal mandates.
Mark Dudenhefer
Chairman,
Stafford County Board of Supervisors
Somebody has to watch the watchdogs
Re: “Inspector general official facing multiple fraud charges,” March 15
Scott McCabe’s story exemplifies the fact that even ethics watchdogs need to be monitored, since it is very easy for someone in such a role to believe they are above the laws they are sworn to uphold in others.
The D.C. government is clearly unafraid to get to the root of such problems. By contrast, when I made ethics complaints against Montgomery County’s IG office as an employee, county officials did little more than deny, discredit and cover up my allegations.
It would not surprise me to learn than no one on the County Council besides Nancy Floreen even knows that I gave the entity that oversees the IG office most of my 221-page complaint against IG Tom Dagley, for whom I worked as an office manager.
Perhaps D.C. officials should offer a workshop to Montgomery County officials on “How to Watch the Watchdog.” Oh, the money they could make.
Elsa L. Fridl
Washington
Gay marriage now, harems later
Re: “Slippery slope logic doesn’t work here,” From Readers, March 3
Matt Virgile does not understand the issues Gregory Kane is raising on how legalizing gay marriage could possible set a precedent for polygamy and polyandry. Gays argue that the government should not have a say in whom they marry. If so, why should it have as say in how many people they marry?
One religion that notably permits polygamy is Islam. Is not separation of mosque and state just as valid as separation of church and state? Surely the 14th Amendment accords Muslims equal protection in matters of religion.
The Bill of Rights extends the freedom to practice one’s religion, even in a manner offensive to the majority, as a protection against the tyranny of mob-ocracy. Therefore, mere unpopularity cannot serve as the basis for legal recission of a constitutional freedom.
Lawrence K. Marsh
Gaithersburg
