Letters to the Editor

A better-informed electorate

Are you distressed about the outsize influence of money on our elections? I certainly am. And as a recent candidate for office, I have seen both sides of the issue.

Voters responded to my message, but to get my message out, my campaign mailed $100,000 worth of postcards. Because of Philadelphia's campaign-finance and ethics laws, I had to raise that money largely in $100 increments, spending hundreds of hours personally asking thousands of people to help. On the other hand, I didn't have to worry about my opponent finding one person with deep pockets to dwarf my efforts. Campaign-finance limits increase the importance of small donations and volunteers, which is a victory for democracy.

Given the Supreme Court's recent decisions, it seems unlikely that government will provide an effective way to keep large corporate donations out of politics. But all is not lost, and the solution lies with us, the people.

Money has an outsize influence on elections because people tend to get most of their political information from television, an expensive medium. What if there were other good sources of political information? What if most people paid a little more attention to those sources and, once better informed, spoke to their neighbors and friends about what they had learned?

As city commissioner, I will do everything in my power to fight the outsize influence of money on politics by connecting Philadelphians with reliable, appropriate sources of information; by supporting any efforts to raise political awareness and education; and by encouraging candidates and parties to be forthcoming. But I can't do it alone. I need your help.

Maybe we can't get the money out of elections. But in the end, it's the votes that are counted, not the money. If we, the people, take a little more responsibility for our own political engagement, we can lick this problem.

Stephanie Singer, city commissioner-elect, Philadelphia

Throw them all out of office

The Occupy movement seems to be casting about for a unifying theme ("All's calm at Occupy deadline," Monday), not unlike the voters in general. The polls tell us that Congress has only a 12 percent approval rating, yet, paradoxically, the majority of incumbents are returned to office. That raises the question of why we, the voters, cannot all agree to vote all of the incumbents out in every election until the politicians get the message that they should be representing the electorate and not the latest special interest. Yes, I'm suggesting that we blindly throw every politician out at every level of government in every election until they understand whom they represent. If someone wants to start such a petition, I am ready to sign on. What do we have to lose? Does anyone think any of the politicians really place our interests above the moneyed interests?

Joseph Springer, Southampton, mrjspringer@aol.com

'Facts' don't back Occupy argument

David Love argues that several "facts" justify the anger of the Occupy Wall Street crowd ("The facts behind the Occupy message," Nov. 21). He cites supposedly striking insights, such as that older Americans have greater net worth than the young. Exactly where or when in the history of the world has that "fact" not been true?

In essence, Love argues that today's America isn't as wonderful for young Americans as it was for their parents and grandparents. That remains to be seen. But history shows that when the young of any nation feel success is unlikely at home, they go somewhere else. Witness the past and continuing waves of immigration, both legal and illegal, whose members all sought and continue to seek greater opportunity.

Yet absolutely no data even remotely suggest that capable, entrepreneurial, or frustrated young Americans are abandoning this nation in search of greener pastures. There isn't even evidence of a trickle of departure - let alone a wave. In short, both history and emigration data refute Love's contrived argument. His "facts" are nothing more than a poor attempt to rationalize the tantrums of a coddled mob.

Dan Whelan, Cape May Point

The tents shouldn't have been allowed

The editorial "Time for Occupy Philly to strike the tents" (Wednesday) is incorrect. The time was before the tents were pitched. The First Amendment's right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" does not give the right to camp on public property. It says assemble, not get drunk or stoned, commit violent crimes, and create an open sewer. Mayor Nutter should have ordered the police to move in as soon as the first tents were erected. Imagine how long the tent city would have lasted if Frank Rizzo were still mayor!

And how is protesting Wall Street and big banks petitioning the government? It was politicians' ineptitude and/or corruption, not Wall Street or the mythical "1 percent" that caused the housing meltdown, the current economic mess, and high unemployment. The protesters should be "occupying" the Capitol, the White House, and also Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which had to be bailed out but whose executives are set to receive millions in bonuses.

Nick O'Dell, Phoenixville, nickodell16@yahoo.com

Kids suffer without millionaires' tax

When I was in school 75 years ago, I realized there were two kinds of kids. Some were smart enough to get through as easily as rolling downhill. Others needed more help, but got through, prepared for the world out there.

The editorial "Public's mood matters" (Wednesday) relates that Gov. Christie has steadfastly refused to allow enactment of a millionaires' tax. This has led to budget shortages, making it necessary to roll back funding for New Jersey schools. That second group of kids, the ones who need more help, are the ones who will suffer.

Republicans always like to hark back to the Founding Fathers as the source of all wisdom in America. So remember what Thomas Jefferson said: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be."

David Perelman, Lafayette Hill, perelman356@comcast.net

Higher taxes a road to failure for GOP

The incessant drum beat by the Inquirer Editorial Board for tax increases seems to have driven them nuts. Asking Gov. Christie or congressional Republicans to violate their clear Election Day mandates to lower taxes and shrink government is the road to failure for the GOP in future contests - which is exactly The Inquirer's agenda.

Republicans across the country are being barraged by similar unsolicited free advice from every liberal media outlet, and it is worth exactly what they pay for it: absolutely nothing.

Michael Hudson, Pottstown

Gingrich takes heat on immigration

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is taking a lot of heat from "compassionate" conservatives because of his stance to allow illegal immigrants who have been in the country a long while to stay ("Formidable foe," Sunday). Does anyone think we can deport 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens? That's as likely to happen as our giving the southwest United States back to Mexico.

Martin N. Frank, Rydal, mnfsax@verizon.net

Thanks for 'unretiring' Bill Lyon

Kudos for finding a way to "unretire" Inquirer sports columnist Bill Lyon ("Once again, it's time to tally our 'gratitudes,'" Sunday). No other action you take will improve the newspaper any better than being able to read Lyon's insightful commentary or wit on a regular basis.

Peter J. Bezrucik, Philadelphia

No sense to gas protests

Where is the common sense of gas-drilling protesters ("Protest against gas drilling," Nov. 22)? We have a natural, homegrown answer to the oil crisis, yet it seems they would rather buy from the "oil barons" of the Mideast than use what we have in our own country. Or do some people think they are put here to protest whatever the cause?

Ruth Snyder, West Chester