Thank you for the data in the March 22 editorial "Sanford reform plan spurned."

The voters of South Carolina voted for Mark Sanford for the very reasons you have pointed out - he cares more about his country, state and our citizens and their present and future welfare than he does about politics for politicians.

The General Assembly in its normal good-ol'-boy way decided that only one [S.C. constitutional] office should be appointed, and that was, as you stated, a "little step in the right direction" to increase efficiency and cut costs. We may have to eliminate some legislators to improve efficiency.

Recently, the Waccamaw Republican Club interviewed three gentlemen who are running for the state Senate. As a member, I attended and listened. One person represented the good-ol'-boy system and said, "I will consider any bill, when I am elected, that gets a bill that brings something to my district because I have been in politics and I know how to make it work."

This is exactly what is wrong today, but we keep electing persons who work this routine to perpetuate their own office-holding. Shame on us.

I have eliminated that person from my consideration for a S.C. Senate position.

It is my belief that the senators and assemblymen who refused to follow the request the governor suggested have also refused to accept the reasons we voted for the governor. They have canceled out my vote without my consideration.

We have to elect persons who will represent the voters in sufficient numbers to eliminate the good-ol'-boy system if we are to save our state and nation.

The legislature also canceled a $1.3 million program that has placed South Carolina as one of the top eight states for reading improvement that would have carried on for three more years and instead voted $1 million for a road program that will not begin for 10 years. My letters and e-mails on this subject have not been answered or acknowledged.

Concerned? You bet.