Is Local 85 President-Business Manager Patrick McMahon deliberately trying to enrage the taxpayers of Allegheny County with his remarks in your June 7 article regarding the Port Authority anticipating the early retirements of some members ("Port Authority Seeks 231 New Hires to Fill Gap")? This is due to the possibility that the Port Authority will stop paying for post-retirement health care. Mr. McMahon stated that we are forcing his people "out the door."

Does Mr. McMahon actually think the taxpayers of Allegheny County can continue to pay these very generous benefits, which few of us could only dream of when we retire? Also, I'm sure Mr. McMahon will gather a lot of sympathy for the "guy who's 46 years old with 25 years of service who can retire with a full pension, [who is] young ... needs family health insurance and doesn't want another job."

Let Mr. McMahon be aware of what the majority of Allegheny County taxpayers' future will look like -- working until age 66 or longer, no pensions and no health insurance other than Medicare (if it is still functioning).

ROSEMARY KENNY
Overbrook

---

I hear all the talk about how repealing the drink tax will cause property taxes to increase. But what I'm not hearing are discussions about how the Port Authority needs to manage an operating budget and what concessions will be made by its employees if it is unable to do so. What cost-saving measures have been implemented by the Port Authority to offset the high price of fuel?

Why in this economy are other people going without raises and having to pay more for their health-care benefits, yet the Port Authority employees shouldn't have to make any concessions and are actually threatening to strike?

Perhaps thoughtful consideration should be given regarding the idea of privatizing the Port Authority so it can actually be run like a for-profit business.

LAURA ABINADER
Squirrel Hill

---

I have been following the public objections of some restaurant owners regarding the 10 percent poured drink tax with cynical interest.

Many restaurants include a mandatory 18 percent gratuity surcharge on the total check, usually when groups of eight or more are dining, even when those diners are given individual checks. Some restaurants, I understand, impose this surcharge on all patrons.

The complaining restaurant owners claim the 10 percent pouring tax, which applies only to poured alcoholic drinks, is a threat to their business volume. If this is true, why do they mandate a gratuity to the server on 18 percent of the total check? They claim a 10 percent tax limited to alcoholic drinks is a detriment to their business while a mandated surcharge of 18 percent of the total check is not?

These restaurant owners claim to be acting in the interests of their patrons, but I cannot help thinking the owners are primarily concerned with their self-interest. Isn't the mandated 18 percent gratuity surcharge a means for the patron to directly subsidize the employment costs of the restaurant's servers? The gratuity to the server must remain a prerogative of the patron. Likewise, the amount of the gratuity also must be the patron's decision. I urge that everyone who is surcharged a mandated gratuity refuse to pay it and give a gratuity directly to the servers as each patron sees fit.

JOHN D. WEINHOLD
Beechview

---

A few years ago when it seemed that every organization on earth was sending me a plastic card to keep in my wallet, I devised a solution to the fat-wallet problem ("Battle of the Bulge," June 16).

I photocopy whatever cards I deem necessary to carry in my wallet, cut out the paper copy and slip it into one of those ultra-thin plastic sleeves made for baseball-card collections (about 59 cents per 100 at sports card stores). The sleeved copies are perfectly legible to both human and bar-code readers and are exactly half the thickness of a typical plastic card.

The only plastic originals I carry are those with magnetic strips to be swiped through a card reader: my driver's license and two credit cards. And I refuse to carry -- or even sign up for -- any of those "loyalty" or "reward" cards at supermarkets and other retailers that offer trivial discounts or inducements to pile up "points."

ROBERT L. WOLKE
Mount Washington

---

Have you taken a walk on Grandview Avenue lately? Well, I have and let me tell you that the once beautiful view you used to be able to enjoy is gone.

The city has let the overgrowth of weeds and trees block the view of Downtown, which is disappointing. Most people who come to the city for the first time take the incline up to Grandview Avenue to look at the view of our great city.

In most spots along the walkway, though, all you can see are trees. I am not saying we should cut down all the trees on the hillside, but with a little time and effort you can bring the view back to Grandview Avenue.

I hope the right person reads this letter and does something about our city's little problem.

TOM SHEA
Mount Washington

---

The June 17 New York Times had an article about a federal employee who was moved from his job of overseeing Pentagon contracts because he questioned a billion-dollar food, housing and services bill from Kellogg, Brown and Root.

Army officials "confirmed that they had reversed his decision, arguing that blocking the payments to KBR would have eroded basic services to troops. They said that KBR had warned that if it was not paid, it would reduce payments to subcontractors, which in turn would cut back on services."

I find it utterly incomprehensible that our government could have placed the Army in a situation where services to our soldiers are under the control of private corporations. But we can now see the result: The corporations can extort money from the Pentagon, effectively holding our soldiers hostage.

It is just one more instance where the Bush administration's claims of supporting our armed forces can be seen for what they really are.

MICHAEL McCONNELL
Leeper, Clarion County

---

In contrast to the opinion of the Post-Gazette on the war in Afghanistan, which continues the "bad news" drum beat, The Telegraph, a London newspaper, printed a story on June 2 reporting that the Taliban is on the brink of defeat in Afghanistan and the war is at a tipping point. Good news, Post-Gazette, we're winning the war!

But be quiet, don't tell anyone; that might create optimism which would not be good for liberal political goals. It says all anyone needs to know about you that you will not report the successes of our military and this country in order to achieve political gains.

MICHAEL McKENDRY
Sewickley

---

Why hasn't anyone noticed something terrible that happened right under our noses? The "terrible thing" is that Hillary Clinton set the women's movement back years!

She whined when she was asked questions first. She wept (one little tear) when the "going got tough." She sniped at Barack Obama and asked him if he "needed a pillow." But the most damaging thing was her "exit" into the sunset. When have we ever had a politician who had to be wooed, pacified, visited in the dark of night secretly and treated with kid gloves so as not to arouse her wrath?

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?"

Did George W. Bush have to appease Al Gore when Mr. Gore made his gracious and masterful concession speech? Did John F. Kennedy have to beg and plead with Richard Nixon not to be mad at him for winning?

Hillary needs time to heal? To recover from psychological trauma? She hid like a queen in her ivory tower waiting to be escorted to the podium to finally acknowledge that she had simply been beaten? She ignored Mr. Obama when he won the nomination and hung on like an ex-wife bargaining for child support.

This election was like no other. And it should have been the same as the others! Hillary injected the "woman's touch" into it. Her hysterical, weeping, screaming followers gave credence to the fact that we do not want to go through this "marriage and divorce" of two campaigners ever again!

PATRICIA MORAN
Point Breeze

---