Reader TTS

* Sam Fleischacker’s excellent piece on Adam Smith’s view of taxes versus that of George W. Bush (Commentary, Jan. 22) didn’t go far enough. It’s true that Dubya’s view that it’s our money

and we owe it to no one conflicts with Smith’s view that taxes represent our contribution to the national community’s health--which, in fact, allowed us to prosper as individuals in the

first place. But I bet that Smith, a critic of the royalist state, would add that we need to have more control over our government to make sure that it manages our collective prosperity

wisely. Around the same time that Smith wrote, some American patriot coined the phrase “no taxation without representation.” We need to strengthen and deepen the role of democracy, but we’ve

been falling down on the job: Since when do five people on the Supreme Court decide who becomes president? Since when do campaign contributions by the rich determine the results of even

more normal elections? JIM DEVINE Culver City * * Fleischacker’s explanation of Smith’s rationale for taxation is all well and good to refute the claims of extremists against all taxes, but

what relevance does it have when the government’s budget is in a state of surplus? How can citizens still owe their government more money for the services they receive when the government is

piling up money? And, just because social problems remain in the land, is that an excuse for government to keep the extra money until it figures out how to solve them? To claim that Smith

would support such an idea is to convert him into a welfare-state socialist. Is that really what Smith stood for? MARK EVANS Los Angeles * * Never have I read an article so compelling to

sway me in favor of taxes! It’s just very hard to swallow paying taxes when I see how unfair the tax code is relative to large corporations. When I see these corporations making billions of

dollars and then through some loophole ending up not paying any taxes at all, I find it extremely difficult to feel that “Every tax is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery, but

of liberty.” It is Washington as usual--we get what we vote for. Fleischacker ought to consider becoming a speech writer. DAVE GUNALL Ventura * * Concerning the gag rule for international

family planning, your Jan. 23 news analysis says it all: “It affects only poor and disenfranchised women in faraway countries.” Way to go, Bush! JANE K. ROBERTS Redlands * * Your statement

in “Bush Fires Quickly on Abortion” (editorial, Jan. 23), “Bush’s actions can only undermine the well-being of women,” is debatable, since many women may be spared abortions or

sterilizations they do not want. What is not debatable is that the well-being of children born and not aborted will be much improved. RICHARD FINKEN Redondo Beach * * Undermining “the

well-being of women,” enhancing the well-being of the unborn. When will we learn that creative service programs to both are what is really needed? Sounds bipartisan! DAVID RUDOLPH Palm

Desert * * Yes, it would appear that George W, “the Great Unifier,” is going to follow exactly in his dad’s footsteps. With such quick decisions on unpopular, rightist actions on abortion

and education, he is also assuring himself a one-term presidency. He wasn’t even wise enough to act like he was trying to win us over first. Who are the Dems grooming for the next effort?

I’m ready to start my campaigning and contributing now. SANDRA W. SUTHERLAND Encinitas * * No matter what your position on abortion, it is simply wrong to use taxpayer money to fund abortion

clinics or operations. A woman’s right to choose is not affected by the denial of taxpayer funding. Those who support abortion can donate all the money they want to abortion clinics and

services. Many of the high-profile liberal movie stars and media darlings have millions of dollars at their disposal, and if they support abortion, they can spend their extra cash. LARRY

ZINI Camarillo * * So, Bush decides that he can, on one hand, kill people without compunction in Texas and deny women the right to even be counseled about family planning on the other. What

a tragic joke the next four years will be for women. CAROL MARSHALL Orange * * With reference to “Bush to Sweeten Education Plan With a Dash of Gore’s Ideas” (Jan. 23): School vouchers next

on the agenda? Fascinating. Does this mean vouchers for Yale, Harvard and Exeter? Did these vouchers pay for Bush’s education? I don’t think so. DELORES BERG Los Angeles * * If President

Bush truly wants to heal the wounds from the election, he can begin by appointing Al Gore to head a blue-ribbon federal commission to reform and standardize federal election voting

procedures. PETER F. XANDER Lake Arrowhead * * Message to President Bush: People do not want compassion. They want a seat at the table--whether it be a conference table or a banquet table.

JEAN W. POWERS Highland, Calif. MORE TO READ