PUBLIC FORUM OTHER PROGRAMS, TOO.

Re ``90,000 lose DWP aid'' (July 5):

Half of the recipients of the Department of Water and Power's subsidy program were dropped because they failed to recertify their eligibility. The article states that officials believe about 30,000 of those actually do qualify. So 60,000, or one-third of all of the people who were taking advantage of this program, have either recently improved their economic standing beyond eligibility or were defrauding the system.

I wonder if this is at all indicative of any other entitlement and subsidy programs. As often as we read about cases like this, how can anyone seriously argue there is not enough money in the system without raising taxes? Perhaps you're feeding off the system?

- Bob Lauria

Thousand Oaks 

Who knew?

Re ``90,000 lose DWP aid'' (July 5):

Untimely filings for Department of Water and Power discounts causes hardship. When I don't pay my taxes on time, what happens? If I were late in paying for my insurance, a parking ticket, a credit card or a loan, what would happen? When I am irresponsible, I pay the price. The world is not responsible for me - or is it?

Tomorrow I will write a letter to DWP asking for two years of back discounts owed me as a low-income senior. I was busy and didn't read about their program until just recently. I may do the same with my telephone company. Thank you, DWP. I am very grateful for my discount. Just kidding about the retro pay.

- Sue Prout

Van Nuys

Something wrong here

Regarding your July 5 front-page article noting that 90,000 are off the rolls for DWP aid. Bureaucrats don't like anyone to get off welfare rolls, as noted by the mayor's urging the DWP ``to get those people back in the program and conduct an aggressive outreach program to ensure eligible people know that they're eligible.''

Isn't there something wrong here, when we are in major debt and taxpayers are suffering?

- Bob Sharp

Arleta

Latest outburst

Re ```Bring them on,' Bush says of U.S. foes in Iraq'' (July 3):

``Bring them on.'' The latest outburst from our president. This from a man who never faced a dangerous second in his entire life. ``Bring them on.'' He, who dodged the Vietnam War by flying for the Texas Air National Guard or some such group that kept him home.

``Bring them on.'' He, who to my knowledge has no family serving over there in Iraq. It's sure easy to say ``bring them on'' when you and yours face no risk. Let someone who has faced death use those words, not a slacker who by hook or crook has risen to the highest office in the land.

- Albert Cohen 

Sherman Oaks

Succumbing to power

Re ```Bring them on,' Bush says of U.S. foes in Iraq'' (July 3):

Our nation now mourns the loss of a young American life to the Iraqi resistance on a daily basis; yet a cocky George W. Bush, from behind the shield of the finest security force in the history of the world, challenges the attackers by saying, ``Bring them on.''

When people succumb to power, they very often place more value on their own life than on lives of those they consider their subordinates, whom they see as expendable in their ``just'' cause. Bush's one Napoleonic success has whetted his appetite for further regime changes in Iran, Liberia and other nations yet to be revealed. As American voters wise up, regime change may yet reach the American capital.

- Philip Wilt

Van Nuys

July 4 combat zone

In the Northeast Valley, a new freedom was widely celebrated on the Fourth of July. It was freedom from the law. Illegal fireworks of professional proportion turned this area into a war zone - more intense even than last year's ``celebration.''

I saw a dog running for its life up the street. There can be no doubt that countless animals were terrorized and endangered. Will these warlike celebrations be allowed to escalate each year? Where were the police?

- Claire Dine

North Hollywood

Big and bad

After spending a lovely evening at the Starlight Bowl in Burbank on the Fourth of July, we were in bumper-to-bumper traffic coming down the hill when suddenly drivers of four sport-utility vehicles and a pickup truck decided they should not have to wait along with the rest of us. They came roaring down the hill on the wrong side of the road. When they spotted a police officer at the intersection, they suddenly wanted to cut in front of everyone.

What is it with some SUV and pickup drivers? Do they think that, because their vehicles are larger, they can intimidate the rest of us? I for one am getting mighty tired of the way some of them drive - not just that evening, but all the time.

- Ardyne Blackstone

Burbank

Where's the justice?

Re ``Convicted rapist gets life term for spitting on officer'' (July 4):

Having thrown off the yoke of the British aristocracy and declared that ``all men are created equal,'' we let a man be sentenced to a life term for spitting on our new royalty, a policeman. The act is disgusting, vile, uncalled for - but not justly punishable by a life term.

Unfortunately, in the last 30 years, our legislators - to pretend to be tough on crime - have gone overboard and have created so many new crimes and so many privileged classes that any sense of justice has long since disappeared, along with billions of dollars to house 2.1 million people, 25 percent of the world's inmates. If the 1996 Oklahoma state law can give a life sentence for placing bodily fluids on law enforcement officers, how long before the Gestapo moves in?

- Bob Driscoll

Woodland Hills

Where Bush stands

Under the tax bill signed by the president in May, families earning as much as $149,000 a year will get a $400 rebate check for each child this month, while 6 million families earning between $10,500 and $26,625 will not. Republican House leaders are currently doing a great job of blocking legislation that would correct this unfair policy.

President George W. Bush is making it quite clear where he stands in this mess. He's busy collecting $2,000 campaign checks from the very wealthy people whose capital gains and dividend tax cuts took priority over child tax credits for lower-income families, including 200,000 with men and women on active military duty. I wonder how welcome the president would be if he tried to land on the deck of an aircraft carrier this month.

- Rita Webber

Canyon Country

No problem for them

I want to help R.D. Hartzfeld (Your Opinions, July 4) decide what to do with his weekly $28.17 tax savings. He would have to save it for several months for that Hawaii vacation or, as he states, he could ``treat the family to dinner at McDonald's.'' I would not recommend the latter because, according to some trial lawyers, it could make him and his family obese.

He could save it and some time in the future buy shares of American companies to help create that unknown number of new jobs. However, he may have to use it to pay for the 300 percent increase in his expensive-car license fee. If it would make him feel better, he could send the money to the officials in city, county, state or federal government because they have no problem spending our money.

- Bill Zelenka

Granada Hills

Notch babies

If you were born between 1921 and 1926, you are a ``notch baby.'' You get more taken out of your Social Security check. Your age group gets less than your fair share. Yep, you child of the Depression, you young adult of the right age group for the military draft - you get to be chosen to help save Social Security.

Why us? Because the guys who thought it up were born after 1926. Politicians, get on this band wagon now and help us get at least a portion of our money back.

- Ann Thomas

Reseda