Letters to the editor: Housing situation for US troops must be fixed immediately

Housing situation for US troops must be fixed immediately

To the editor:

I am the daughter of a former colonel in the USA who served in World War II, Korea and the Japanese Occupation. Considering all the crises our country faces at this time my concern may seem trivial, but I think it is critical to the support of our military forces nationally and internationally.

After hearing a damning report on the Feb. 29, 2024, radio program On Point on NPR about the condition of barracks and other housing for members of the military and their families, I was aghast, enraged and disgusted at the hypocrisy of our government in caring for the men and women, and their families, who we rely on to maintain the safety of our country. The program revealed that the financing for maintenance of these facilities over many years was essentially "stolen," reassigned, to the more pressing needs of the military during its involvement in the Middle East and elsewhere, and of course now, with the Ukraine War and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I totally understand the need to prioritize resources and have no knowledge or understanding of this complicated decision-making process. But I do know that higher ranking officers have quite adequate if not elegant residences, having visited military peers of my dad at Ft. Myers, Va. as a child. I suspect that their housing needs have not been neglected.

It is time to re-evaluate, again, the housing situation for lower level troops, which has been going on for literally decades: the scandal at Walter Reed years ago is an early example. Do we not owe our troops and their families decent living conditions free of mold, without broken windows, without sewage backing up in their bathrooms, without broken HVAC systems?

Would General Austin, Secretary of Defense; members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or members of Congress tolerate those conditions? Then, why should the people upon whom we rely to keep this country safe?

I hope my letter will inspire other citizens to hold those responsible accountable and to find a way to address this failure to support our troops at an incredibly important time. Thank you for your kind attention.

Melissa M. Hutton

Daughter of Hamilton M. Hutton, Colonel, USA

Waynesboro, Pa.

Maryland should reject expansion of gambling to online platform

To the editor:

Gov. Hogan used to remark that the state of Maryland didn’t have a revenue problem; rather it had a spending problem. The 2024 legislative session has proven that statement to be true, with the introduction of several initiatives to increase revenues that include expansion of the sales tax base to include services and additional legislation to extend casino gaming to an online platform — all to satisfy a spending problem.

No sooner has the Maryland legislature legalized brick and mortar casinos complete with slot machines and table games, then proceeded to legalize sports betting, and cannabis that it now looks to expanding the art of gambling to everyone’s living room, place of employment and every gathering place. Casino gambling would be available oneveryone’s cell phone!

At risk are the six land-based casinos, which have an estimated economic impact of $3.4 billion, and support an estimated 27,500 direct and indirect jobs. Having invested over $3 billion in facilities, these same casinos contribute almost $900 million annually in direct gaming tax revenue to the state. Why risk it — it is reported that other states that have implemented online gaming have experienced the loss of hundreds of millions in economic activity, including millions in lost wages, brick and mortar casino revenue, and thousands of jobs.

Although revenue estimates predict an additional $334 million may accrue to the blueprint for Maryland’s future fund (education), don’t think for one minute that this expansion of gambling at your fingertips will be a net benefit for the average Marylander. Rather, it will go a long way in exacerbating gambling habits and destroying already struggling families and their financial wellbeing, while pooling money in the hands of the wealthy iGaming enterprises who each will pay a $1 million initial license fee to the state. Additionally, those who struggle personally with gambling addiction will find it even more difficult to combat that addiction.

Just look at the testimony — those few who believe that they will benefit financially from the expansion of gambling (the license holders) testified in favor, while the 100s of employees at the brick and mortar casinos, the small business owners who service the casinos, and those independent policy analysts lobbied against the proposed legislation.

Anirban Basu, the well-respected CEO of Sage Policy Group explained that he looked at the entire economic impact of iGaming and found that, after the job losses, loss of in-person casino tax revenue and other related economic impacts, it is doubtful there is any gain to the state’s overall coffers as a result of expanding gambling to mobile phones.

Furthermore, the $330 million potential net gain does little toward satisfying the appetite of the estimated $6 billion annual cost of implementing the blueprint. The additional billions being spent on the blueprint have not been justified by classroom performance, and the majority party in the legislature has repeatedly rejected legislation introduced by the minority party to address failing schools, improve the BOOST program or pass legislation to allow for the funding to follow the student through the creation of educational savings accounts.

If the iGaming legislation passes, Marylanders may have the ability to vote on the issue through referendum in the upcoming general election. I encourage voters to choose wisely. The odds favor the House, not the taxpayer.

Delegate William Wivell

Trump fine should be deemed excessive, unconstitutional

To the editor:

The news tells me today that former President Donald Trump has just been fined $454,000,000.

The 8th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

I wonder, in this economy today, how much should be considered to be an excessive fine? What amount would constitute a cruel punishment? How much of a fine should be called an unusual punishment? Half a million dollars? One million dollars?

I hope that soon I will hear in the news that the fine assigned to Trump has been determined to truly be an excessive fine and that it has been found that to decree a fine of $454,000,000 violated the Constitution of the United States. What punishment should be meted out to the official who would so violate the Constitution?

Dan Manka

Fairmont, W.Va.

Jan. 6 rioters were certainly not hostages

To the editor:

Donald Trump is now calling rioters from Jan. 6 hostages.

These are the people who savagely attacked Capitol Police officers who were protecting the United States Capitol.

This is a perfect example of how unfit Trump is for any office.

James Griffin

Waynesboro, Pa.

The clock is ticking on Trump

To the editor:

It’s game over for Trump.

These aren’t the 1980’s any more. No more Daddy to bail you out.

Your days of intimidating lower court judges and bribing prosecutors to ignore your crimes and running to banks for more sketchy loans are over. You have been a criminal/crook living off debt all your miserable life.

Your criminality finally caught up, if you had conceded there would be no DC trial, no Georgia trial, if you had returned classified documents there would be no Florida trial, if you didn’t cheat and steal from banks, insurance companies and governments, you wouldn’t be on trial in Manhattan.

But you’re a very insecure loser and act like a mobster, and now your businesses and freedom are bigly at risk. The clock is ticking Trump, and you’re going to have to make some tough decisions fast.

This is who the MAGA party (formerly the GOP) wants to have the reigns of power — Really?

Patricia Taylor

Williamsport

This article originally appeared on The Herald-Mail: Herald-Mail letters to the editor for Sunday, March 31