Letters to the Editor

District making inroads

I want to correct the erroneous impression that the article “Millions for roads are left unspent” (Metropolitan, April 21) gives about how the District spends money on transportation. The article says the District “has left more than $25 million in federal transportation grant money untouched since 1992 even as analysts rank the area’s roadways among the most congested in the nation.” In fact, the D.C. Transportation Department has been going about the complex, arcane and time-consuming steps required by federal law to change the use of these funds from unneeded projects to higher-priority projects that will meet current needs. We were doing this well before the inspector general’s office began work on its report.

The article correctly points out that federal transportation funds were obligated originally for a second Anacostia Station parking garage and that this facility is clearly unneeded. However, the article waits until the 13th paragraph to point out, “The District does not stand to lose the funds.” The article does not mention that the department is actively working with the Federal Highway Administration to gain federal approval for alternative projects along the South Capitol Street corridor. These new projects include adding safety enhancements at Suitland Parkway and Firth Sterling Avenue, one of our most dangerous intersections, and designing the new South Capitol Street/Frederick Douglass Bridge.

The article notes that some states also have unspent federal transportation funds. In fact, Maryland has three projects worth $5 million, and Virginia has 13 projects worth $22 million.

Unfortunately, the story advances the stereotype that the District is unable to spend federal grant money effectively. In fact, the District has gone from spending barely $57 million per year on transportation and not meeting its local match five years ago to spending some $200 million per year and establishing a dedicated source of matching funds. I invite The Washington Times to tell the story of this turnaround.

DAN TANGHERLINI

Director

D.C. Department of Transportation

Washington

Mom, pop and their SUV

John Hall expresses concern that with the rising price of gasoline, “Mom and Dad won’t have much left in the wallet for a motel and hot dogs as they hit the great American highway” for their summer vacation (“Oil, bombs and ballots,” Commentary, Tuesday).

Let’s say that the price of gasoline will have risen by 40 cents since the vacation budget was set and that Mom and Pop own a gas-guzzling sport utility vehicle that gets 15 miles to the gallon. Further, they intend to travel 3,000 miles on the vacation. Simple arithmetic shows that they will have to buy 200 gallons of gasoline. The additional 40 cents per gallon will add $80 to the planned budget. Deciding not to go to Disneyland for one day will likely pay for that expense. With a family of five, skipping the ticket, food and other expenses of Disneyland for one day will allow Mom and Pop to make at least one payment on the SUV.

Gasoline prices are attention grabbers because gas is a pay-as-you-go product. Think what a weekly federal or state income-tax payment (not withheld but paid by check) would do to raise the consciousness of the citizenry.

BEN F. SANDS JR.

Vienna

Liberals first, Jews second

Marcus J. Goldman makes great points (” ’But he hates Jews,’ ” Op-Ed, Tuesday). It really does appear that some Jews love their enemies and hate their friends.

Perhaps, though, those Jews are liberals first and Jews second. How else can such behavior be explained but by their being blinded by the darkness of hatred, prejudice and ignorance?

C. KENNA AMOS JR.

Princeton, W.Va.

•

Marcus J. Goldman’s important and insightful Op-Ed column should serve as a call not only to the self-delusional liberal Jewish community, but to the entire liberal community that it is time to wake up from its 40-year wishful-thinking trip. There are people who want to kill us for being us. This misery-based hatred seems to be hard for liberals to comprehend, so they would rather blame President Bush as the cause of the hatred than see him as a catalyst for the potential solution.

DAN FRANKENTHAL

Washington

What about Clinton?

Sen. John Kerry’s flip-flopping on the medals-ribbons issue is but a reminder of another, more politically damaging change of heart: ridiculing President Bush for his National Guard service (“Kerry hits back on medals, calls it ’phony controversy,’ ” Page 1,Tuesday).

When Bill Clinton was running against Vietnam veteran Sen. Bob Kerrey in 1992, John Kerry, in defense of Mr. Clinton after Mr. Kerrey had criticized him for not serving in Vietnam, said, “I’ve never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, or going into the National Guard.”

John Kerry said then that “we do not need to divide America over who served and how.” John Kerry should have stuck to this position and acknowledged, rather than condemned, the honorable service of Mr. Bush and the hundreds of thousands of other National Guard members defending America every day.

WILLIAM H. SMITH

Palm Desert, Calif.

Reviewing Patriot’s powers

As co-authors of the sunset provisions that apply to some of the most sensitive provisions of the Patriot Act, we must respectfully take issue with the president’s characterization of them (“Patriot Act called lifesaver,” Nation, April 20).

The president implies that Congress made these provisions subject to review and renewal because of a belief that the threat of terrorism itself would soon pass. That is not the case.

At the time they were written, we and others in Congress knew the war on terrorism would take years, and maybe even decades. The straightforward purpose of the sunset provisions is to ensure that these powerful new tools given to government are used properly. They are intended to encourage the Justice Department’s cooperation with congressional oversight. Not only is it appropriate, but it also is necessary that Congress have the ability to review the record before renewing extensions of government power such as these, which, if abused, can needlessly compromise the freedoms of the American people.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY

U.S. Senate

REP. RICHARD ARMEY

Retired, U.S. House

Washington

A win-win for vegans

With fad-diet advocates urging us to eat more meat, it was great to read a piece about the benefits of a meat-free diet (“Avowedly vegan,” Metropolitan, Tuesday). More and more studies find that vegetarian eating can reduce the risks of various cancers, heart disease and diabetes while effectively combating obesity. There also has never been a better time than now to try meat-free foods, especially in our nation’s capital.

By eliminating meat from our diets, we are also taking a stand against animal cruelty. Each year, billions of animals raised for food live in filthy, miserable conditions; endure physical abuse; and are routinely mutilated without the use of painkillers. Adopting a vegetarian diet is a simple step we can take to remove our support from this cruel industry and promote a more compassionate world for us all.

ERICA MEIER