Rules might slow pols’ stampede to higher office

I have noticed with interest that several people have already announced their intention to run for president. Good grief! The election is about 20 months away. It is beginning to look like many people are running for the House and Senate just to get to Washington, D.C., and run for higher office rather than take a seat and represent the interests of the voters who elected them. I propose these remedies: First, there should be a law that there can be no campaigning whatsoever until five months before the election. Second, a candidate should have to resign from his or her present office before qualifying for higher office.


Pitts would have year-round Black History Month

It’s clear from Leonard Pitts’ column, “It’s time to reconsider high cost of not knowing history” (Opinion, Feb. 10), and virtually every other column he writes, that Black History Month is where Pitts spends his existence. He’d have it occur every month of the year for all of us if he could. But even that might not suffice. Therefore, I nominate Mr. Pitts to serve in the new cabinet post of Disaffirmative Action Secretary for the next Democratic president – a position where he can spout his weekly racial rants and work to bring back slavery, this time for whites. That end seems to be the only nostrum that possibly would give Pitts the satisfaction he seeks. Then he could retire from the national scene and allow race relations to reset in America’s melting pot, without his constantly stirring it.


Labels keep politicians from solving problems

Major news issues are typically described in terms of Republicans versus Democrats. This is misleading. These issues are typically between those who give top priority to money (“capitalists”) and those who give top priority to people (“populists”). Obviously, both money and people are important. Both are almost always involved in any major issue. When debates over major issues are framed as Democrats versus Republicans, however, emotions run high. Resolution of those issues can range from difficult to impossible, since neither party will endorse the other. Debates between populists and capitalists, however, could explore the potential impact of a decision in terms of money and people, without party doctrine. With some issues, the impact on people will be given priority. On other issues, the monetary impact will be more important. Either way, the impact on people and money will be compared directly, so decisions can be derived rationally, rather then emotionally based on party loyalty.


No, AJC, not every MARTA opponent is a racist

Your coverage of the Gwinnett MARTA vote implies that anyone voting “no” is a racist.

I disagree, because the deal with MARTA is fiscally irresponsible. In the contract, it states 29 percent of the tax money will go to MARTA in the first six years; then, after year seven and beyond, the money will go to MARTA to be utilized by them for whatever they see fit. Any change will have to be renegotiated by Gwinnett and by MARTA. There is no guarantee MARTA will extend the subway into Gwinnett. With no abrogation clause, why would MARTA negotiate? I have seen the boondoggle the Gwinnett Braves and Cool-Ray Stadium brought to the county – both big money losers – and I believe the MARTA project will be right along those same lines.

In addition, increasing the sales tax, the most regressive tax, will hurt the working poor and young families.