Securing the Nation
It was, as the cover promised, "the scary truth" ["Terror's Next Target?" February 19]. What I found even scarier was the specificity of the "scenario" of just how terrorists might kill thousands by hitting the Sunoco refinery in Philadelphia. After major crimes or school shootings, there are usually "copycat" echoes because of published details. So now, if one of these targets is hit, you will not only be able to say we told you so; you'll be able to say we told you how.
ED DES LAURIERS
Eden Prairie, Minn.
Your cover story ought to be required reading for every member of Congress, not to mention all bureaucrats who are supposed to be working on these issues and making us safer. How pathetic that we are so unprepared for the next catastrophe.
SCOTT CAMASSAR
Norwich, Conn.
Author Stephen Flynn's description of potential acts of terrorism is as real as any of them. He and others often correctly point out the need for long-term investments to make our critical infrastructure more secure. The real challenge is managing the costs. Virtually all of the most potentially devastating targets are in the private sector: stadiums, financial institutions, utilities, chemical companies, etc. The current administration expects that costs of security enhancements should be borne by the assets' owners. It is therefore incumbent upon Congress and the administration to encourage the private sector to develop a solution that provides incentives for companies to invest in effective security. Terrorism risk insurance would be a significant inducement for private-sector investment. The same practices that result in buildings being more resilient to earthquakes to lower insurance costs can lend themselves to building more resilient infrastructure with an incentive to obtain insurance coverage. Associated insurance incentives are key mechanisms to encourage investment.
ROBERT LISCOUSKI
Former Assistant Secretary
Infrastructure Protection
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Accessible Healthcare
Ending the inequality in tax treatment for Americans with individually owned healthcare coverage is an important step toward making health insurance more accessible to those who aren't covered through an employer ["A Fair Health Fix," February 19]. Americans without healthcare coverage live sicker and die younger, so we must make it easier for those without to get covered. The American Medical Association plan to cover the uninsured calls for government tax credits, based on a sliding scale related to income, to purchase health insurance. The credits won't work in a vacuum. We also need health insurance market reforms to make individual ownership viable for more Americans. President Bush, lawmakers, and high-level coalitions to cover the uninsured are to be commended for re-energizing the national dialogue, and Congress has an opportunity this year to begin taking action. Reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the successful government program that covers children in low-income families, is a must and an important first step toward getting more Americans healthcare coverage.
CECIL WILSON, M.D.
Board Chair
American Medical Association
Chicago
If the United States is serious about the ideals of freedom and justice in the Bill of Rights, then it is long overdue to put healthcare in the same category as other inalienable rights.
GREG GIORGIO
Altamont, N.Y.
Any American over 50 or with chronic health problems probably has health insurance that costs more than $7,500 for an individual policy or $15,000 for a family policy. The only reason that the president and Congress have not been overwhelmed with protest is that most of us do not realize how much our health insurance costs and how much our employers are able to deduct. When the amount of deduction lost is realized, the howl of pain will shake all elected officials.
EVEREST A. WHITED, M.D.
Pflugerville, Texas
Eliminating the Learning Curve?
Congratulations to politicians who want to destroy public education in America. The "No Child Left Behind" Law under the guise of reform is doing its job ["Did Help Get Left Behind?" February 19]. Politicians have managed to sucker in some liberals while totally exhausting teachers, school administrators, and children, chasing ridiculous test scores while learning is a shambles. When I started teaching in 1964, I had high hopes to be able to fix the system. It's cheaper to fix than to build prisons. You can't do anything until you have small classes, real behavioral and academic discipline, and capable administrators with guts and at least 15 years' real classroom teaching experience. Is it failing schools or a system failing the schools?
BRIAN POLLOCK
Philadelphia
I applaud the efforts of districts nationwide that do their best to meet the needs of all students. Yes, NCLB opened some eyes, and administrators took a look at best practices in their schools. I am encouraged to see programs develop like Ivan Small's after-school study program mentioned in the story. But the roadblocks to learning are typically not in the classroom. Dysfunctional families and inadequate parenting are two things that schools have no control over, yet impact student learning.
CHRISTINE RECHNER
Mundelein, Ill.
"Did Help Get Left Behind?" failed to mention that the NCLB legislation punishes schools where students do not reach a certain level of academic performance. Instead, the law should require merit pay for teachers whose students learned more while under their guidance than they did when instructed by other teachers. By making this change, the NCLB law could identify how much of students' scholastic success is due to their teachers' competence. Parents, school boards, and the taxpaying public have an urgent need for such information.
PATRICK GROFF
Professor of Education Emeritus
San Diego State University
The simple fact is that by 2014 almost every school in America will be failing because the mandates of the law are impossible to meet. One hundred percent of all students proficient? Even those who are mentally disabled? One hundred percent of all students graduate from high school? Even those who can't speak English? They do have a year to become proficient in the English language. Many educators, including me, suspect the real agenda behind NCLB is the destruction of public education. Unless there are significant modifications of the law, that's exactly where we're headed.
JAMES A. SPENCE
Assistant Professor
Chapman University College
Orange, Calif.
Plans, Ploys, and Politics as Usual
I am outraged by the actions of our politicians outlined in "Nobody Does It to the Dems Like Newt" [Washington Whispers, February 19]. Gathering at closed-door retreats and suggesting ways to squash the Dems? Tactics to delay legislation and tricks to trap Democrats? Drop a bomb the media will love? This is so mean-spirited and petty and harkens back to high schoolers planning a Halloween outing. Is this all these people have to do? Maybe that's why nothing gets done in Washington these days. They are too busy attacking each other.
KATE REIMER
St. Louis
Iraq: To Leave or Not to Leave
I read Mortimer B. Zuckerman's "Why We Can't Leave" [February 12] and agreed with the very troubling difficulties facing Iraq and the United States. However, there was one line I kept going back to: "Abandoning Iraq would plunge the country we went to war to save into a grim horror movie." Since when did we decide to invade Iraq to save Iraq? I've heard every rationale from weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda to 9/11 to the spread of democracy. Now Zuckerman has come up with yet another. I'm sure our commander in chief will be grateful to your editor-in-chief for another lame reason for having invaded Iraq.
PAUL DROZ
Rich Hill, Mo.
Not all political and military analysts predict our doomsday if we leave Iraq soon. The actual history of divisions in the Middle East shows centuries of complicated entanglements between tribes, nations, and religions. So the whole area could implode on itself instead of exploding on us. Without our involvement there, we could start what we should have done in the first place: covertly finding and dealing with terrorist leaders, not sovereign nations. Ongoing intelligence and covert actions have already stopped several potential attacks since 9/11, not our presence in Iraq.
FRED S. MANNING
West Harrison, Ind.
Zuckerman's editorial omitted the words that everyone else is afraid to use if and when we leave Iraq without winning the war for its new democratic form of government: Islamic theocracy. If we stay for any number of years, we will have committed ourselves to the beginning of a century-long religious war. If we do not succeed in stopping Iran's development of nuclear weapons, we'll have to send our air and ground forces to also protect our ally, Israel.
COL. DANIEL B. MCELWAIN JR.
USAF (Ret.)
Culpeper, Va.
This story appears in the March 12, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.