Tom Wimsatt

Mount Airy, Md 21771-7490

The Gazette

218 Main Street

Mount Airy, Md.  21771

Dear Gazette,

I have a couple of comments on recent commentaries by  Bob Hilton and Michael Guerin.  Regarding Mr. Hilton’s column, in March, advocating a national creed, I have one main question regarding such an idea:  How can anyone guarantee that those who take the creed actually will follow through with what Mr. Hilton believes the creed states?  It would be great if being forced to recite a creed, when taking a job, would actually cause people to change their behavior for the better.  However, this would not happen.  Unfortunately, it would be a waste of time and effort.  In addition, the current trend in our government of considering a legal document like the constitution to be a living, breathing document, (ala Al Gore and the Democrats) promotes the idea that a person may give any meaning to a statement that he chooses.  Our postmodern society also promotes the idea that words have no meaning other than what anyone wants to give them. For example, many churches today tell their members to decide for themselves what the writings of the Bible mean.  If people don’t know what the Bible means, how can they consider themselves to be  “believers”?  Believers of what, I wonder?  If that can happen to the Bible, then what will happen to a national creed?

I also have a comment for Mr. Guerin concerning the parallel he draws between auto and health insurance in his April 7 commentary, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly.  The state requires liability auto insurance, at a minimum, to cover the damage a person does, when he is at fault, only to someone else.  A person is not forced to buy auto insurance to cover damage to his own vehicle.  A parallel could only be drawn between auto and health insurance if people were forced to insure any damage they caused to their own, beat up, extremely old, nearly worthless automobile.  That is the type of vehicle for which people generally do not choose to carry complete insurance.  I don’t see the reason for forcing health insurance on those who would rather not have it, especially for those in the income brackets (over $55,900 single and over $83,850 married).  Where is the evidence that people in those brackets are a drain on our public health care system?  It seems to me the Democrats consider them in the category of  “the rich” and the 1 percent health tax is just another redistribution of wealth scheme.  (Maybe Delegate Elliott is switching sides?)  Also, this is only going to further the over-burdening welfare society we already have.  It is not hard to see that the 1 percent is going to go towards bigger welfare programs to keep the public dependent on the government.  I can understand requiring taxes to pay for services and infrastructure the public wants and needs, but requiring a tax for something that is not wanted and may not be needed does not make sense.  Could it be that the people targeted by this bill consider themselves to be relatively healthy and are paying as they go?  Let’s get our facts straight before another tax is imposed on the people of Maryland.