‘Happy Earth Day’

Thank you for the excellent New York Sun editorial on environmental progress, which cites our research on air pollution [“Happy Earth Day,” Editorial, April 20, 2005]. One point your editorial didn’t mention, however, is that New York City just won a kind of atmospheric Oscar by making the “Most Improved List” in a recent air-quality report by the Environmental Protection Agency.

New York’s air has been becoming increasingly clean for some time now. In fact, from 1992-2003, there were only 165 days total in which NYC exceeded the EPA’s standard for air pollution. That’s down from 336 days in the previous decade. New York State was also a top-10 winner for reducing its fumes from power plants. Between 1990 and 2002, New York reduced its sulfur dioxide emissions – which contribute to ozone pollution and acid rain – by a dramatic 46 %.

Who would have thought that New York City – home of the Lincoln Tunnel – would be leading a national trend toward cleaner air?

SALLY C. PIPES
President and CEO Pacific Research Institute, Co-publisher of the annual Index Of Leading Environmental Indicators
San Francisco

‘Draco and the Democrats’

Re: “Draco and the Democrats,” Editorial, May 2, 2005. As the President’s “60 Stops in 60 Days” tour comes to an end, I have to ask how is it that the opposition still only offers no reform. I understand that not everyone is going support the president on every issue, but we know that Social Security is in a crisis since the U.S. Senate voted 100-0 that changes are necessary for the program to continue. The President has also made it clear the personal retirement accounts are voluntary and that there will no change for those born before 1950.

I personally think that I could invest my money to benefit me better than the government.

KIMBERLY MORELLA
Bedford Hills, N.Y.

‘Mr. X Agonistes’

Re: “Mr. X Agonistes,” Opinion, April 27, 2005. I’m a conservative in Park Slope and have the same problems. I’ve ruined many a dinner party expressing my opinions. People generally regard me as a visitor from another planet.

Yet I don’t think we can spend too much time preening ourselves over our problems. One of the first things you learn as a conservative is that politics is no longer a matter of “protest” but of responsibility. Liberals always assume that somebody “up there” is running the world, and they can just scream and shout, “You can’t do that!” and “I want more!” When you’re a conservative, you realize nobody else is running the world, and it’s our responsibility to make it work.

Take Social Security. Read Peter Peterson’s “Running on Empty” or Laurence Kotlikoff’s “The Coming Generational Storm” and you’ll realize that in 50 years, one in four Americans will be over 65 and most of our GNP will be dedicated to paying their pensions and medical expenses. Yet do you hear Democrats worrying? They’re only response is, “Don’t touch Social Security! Franklin Roosevelt invented it, and it’s fine with me.”

Or how about energy? President Bush has to walk hand-in-hand with Crown Prince Abdullah begging him to give us more oil. But do you see Democrats supporting the construction of new liquid natural gas terminals or nuclear plants? No, it’s all “Blame Bush because gas is going up!” or “Let’s open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and save a few pennies next week.”

We conservatives can’t stand around congratulating ourselves over the fecklessness of our liberal friends. There’s work to be done.

WILLIAM TUCKER
Brooklyn

‘Affordable Housing’?

The article about a new condo building in Lower Manhattan [“Luxury Condo Tower will be First to Receive Lower Manhattan Funding,” Julie Satow, New York, April, 25, 2005] uses the political phrase “affordable housing” to describe what is really taxpayer subsidized housing for low-income residents.

Along with phrases like “sustainable development” and “fair trade,” “affordable housing” is part of the emotional language used by welfare-theft proponents to market their plans to steal from one group for the benefit of another.

While some privileged low-income residents will get subsidized housing, the rest of us will find housing a bit less affordable since we are taxed to pay for the subsidy. The net impact of the subsidized units is zero.

The only way to make housing more affordable for everyone is to increase the supply of housing without subsidies. The phrase “affordable housing” ignores those who must pay the subsidy and is only appropriate for pressure group propaganda materials.

DAVID DOCTOR
Manhattan

---

Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007.Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.