Our laws cannot be based on religion

I would like to remind Ms. Benedetto (Fence Post, June 13) and all residents of our country that the United States is not a Christian nation.

Rather, the United States is a democratic nation,ˆ  and, as such, we require the separation of church doctrine from state and federal law.

This means that no decision of law -- such as the right to abortion, as mentioned in Ms. Benedetto's letter -- can be swayed by reference to any religious doctrine.

Because we are a free country, we are entitled to our personal opinions. But no legislative or judicial decisions in this country can be based on religious belief.

Lisa Williams

Palatine

The real challenge to Social Security

I thought Bill Hartman (Fence Post, Friday) was a bit rough on Frank Sears (Fence Post, Tuesday).

Bill implied that Frank kept his savings in a mattress, and most damning of all, he was probably a Democrat.

Bill, I am a retired Democrat living comfortably off my 401K and other investments.

In defense of Frank, he was merely concerned that Congress would invest our Social Security Trust Fund in bad stocks and lose most of it.

I have some terrible news. There is no Social Security Trust Fund. There is no money to invest or lose.

Starting with LBJ, Congress has transferred the extra Social Security taxes to the General Fund and spent it.

Congress issued worthless Treasury bonds to pretend that the trust fund still exists.

The really bad news is that Congress' shell game is about to run into trouble. Within the next few years, the amount of Social Security money collected will be less than the amount paid out.

At this point, ordinary tax revenues will be needed to meet part of the Social Security payroll.

Winfield Green

Mount Prospect

Study on townships was not flawed

This letter is in response to an article in the Daily Herald about my study on township government on May 7 and a subsequent letter to the editor by Elk Grove Township Supervisor Nanciˆ  Vanderweel on May 24.

Both pointed to errors in population numbers intimating that the entire study might somehow be flawed.

The majority of the data for the study, including population figures, were obtained from reports that townships send to the state.

So the population and employment figures were numbers that the townships themselves reported. I assumed their reports to the state were accurate.

Even after correcting Hanover Township's population reporting mistake, the ratio of employees to population is still one of the highest among townships at 1:1,897 residents.

The average for all townships is one employee for 3,024 residents. Hanover's ratio is roughly 60 percent higher than the average.

Even with the changes reported in Ms. Vanderweel's letter, my overall finding on staffing stands: There appears to be no reason to the staffing patterns of the townships. The only conclusion is that some townships are patronage havens and have much larger staffs than necessary.

ˆ Other findings in the report: Townships carry large surpluses -- some have enough cash on hand to operate for over two years; non-township counties in the state collect 13.5 percent less property taxes; township youth and senior citizen services are also offered by many municipalities; Cook County townships no longer assess property, but the position still exists; and townships spend twice as much on road maintenance per mile than a sample of eight suburban municipalities.

ˆ Eliminating townships should result more seamless provision of services, less duplication, better coordination of services and a reduction in administrative costs.

An estimate of the savings in Cook County if townships were eliminated is 50 percent of the $80-plus million that they spent in 2007.

ˆ David Hamilton

Dept. of Politicalˆ  Science and Public Administration Roosevelt University

Schaumburg

Democrats begin socialist policies

The U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, both controlled by Democrats, are about to pass the war funding bill.

To get the funding, the president is going to have to accept a huge expansion in an entitlement program, military educational benefits.

The benefits may be transferred to other family members and they don't have to be used in the public school system.

The total cost will be $62.8 billion.

Surely, there must be another $62.8 billion to provide educational benefits to our nation's police officers and their families. They go to work and risk their lives every day.

Surely, there's got to be another $62.8 billion for firemen and their families who save lives and have to be ready and on alert 24 hours a day.

Surely, there has to be another $62.8 billion for pilots and their families who never know when the plane will crash and kill all the passengers on board or when they will be killed by terrorists or hijacked.

Surely, there has to be another $62.8 billion for doctors, nurses and ambulance drivers and their families who are saving lives all the time.

Surely, there has to be another $62.8 billion for farmers and their families. If they don't grow food or raise animals, we don't eat.

Surely, there has to be another $62.8 billion for those in the computer business. Look at all the pleasure and good technology they have provided. Plus, remember the military uses that technology. Let's double their entitlement to $125.6 billion.

Surely, there has to be another $62.8 billion for moms. I'm real happy that my wife could have and did have children. Moms deserve everything they can get. Wait, let's expand that to all females.ˆ  Women have many honorable roles in our society.

Surely, there has to be another $62.8 billion for dads, make that all males. Look at all the honorable professions men are in.

Let's move on to health care. Hillary, where are you?

John Strzelecki

Mount Prospect

Obama goes back on his word

Friday's Herald had an interesting article entitled "Obama bypasses public money: Going back on word, Democrat knows he'll raise more by himself."

Usually politicians wait until after they are elected to go back on their word.

"Change" and "reform" are nice words; judge a person on his deeds, not his words.

America, take note:ˆ  If Obama can't keep his word before the election, how well do you think he'll do if elected?

Pat Stasiak

Mount Prospect

Democrats, GOP both deficit spend

Mr. Martin's letter (Fence Post, Wednesday) contains a misunderstandingˆ  about the functions of the executive and legislative branches of the government.

The president (executive branch) proposes but Congress(legislative branch) disposes, i.e., spends the money it has appropriated.

Congress appropriates money with taxes and by law every spending bill must originate in the House of Representatives, specifically in the House Ways and Means Committee

And no, deficit spending didn't originate with Ronald Reagan. The Democrats have been deficit funding since 1956.

They never had a surplus and in fact, the only surplus we have had in the last 60 years occurred when Newt Gingrich coerced the Republican House in 1994 to ignore President Clinton's deficit finances and stop appropriating a bloated budget.

Unfortunately, that didn't last long and the Republicans quickly went back to the Democrats method of spending more than they take in.

I can agree with you that some day everyone will pay for this folly, but no political party is without guilt, save the Libertarians who have never held public office.

Bob Lowth

Arlington Heights