Air traffic, noise are getting worse | Jan. 6 letter
Air traffic part
of living here
I take offense to the letter about how air traffic is flying over some of the most expensive homes in Hernando County. Just because the writer lives in an area with the most expensive homes, and has money, does not mean he is exempt from air traffic.
I also live in Hernando County and my house is under the flight path. So every day, I get the corporate jets flying in and out and the U.S. Coast Guard helicopters and planes flying low enough that I can see the pilots while they are doing their touch-and-go landings. It does, on occasion, bother me, but it is all part of living in Hernando County. So, get over it.
As for the commission building the control tower and the pilots stating that it was not necessary and a waste of money, people said the same thing when the government started to mandate speed limits on roads when the first automobile came out. If it means more business for Hernando County, then I am willing to live with the inconvenience of said aircraft flying over my house. If you do not like military aircraft and helicopters flying over your expensive house, then put your expensive house up for sale and move to an area that has banned air traffic. Good luck.
Jeff Salvatore, Spring Hill
Nugent has shifted stance
I clearly recall the years of 2008-2010 as Hernando County began to suffer severe budget constraints. Then-Sheriff Rich Nugent was standing by his principles and insisting he could not reduce his budget, and he needed more revenue. Nor could he reduce his organization's spending as he was already severely strapped and would drastically have to cut services. So this mantra and stand on principles went on yearly, with some modest budget concessions, until he became U.S. Rep. Nugent.
Odd, that in his new position those principles seem to have changed. Now he stands by the principle that our federal government does not need more revenue but needs to seriously cut spending, especially in entitlements such as unemployment benefits, Medicare and Social Security. The demographics of the district reflect the majority of its folks to be in that infamous 47 percent and lower when it comes to income. These folks are not freeloaders looking for handouts. Many are hardworking folks who have lost their jobs thanks to economic decline. These folks need and deserve those unemployment benefits.
Another very large group of his constituents are senior citizens who rely on Social Security and Medicare. Most of these folks are not your more well-to-do seniors who live in gated communities, but those who live in the abundant mobile home communities. In these harsh economic times, they are even more dependent on their meager fixed incomes from Social Security and health support from Medicare.
Yes, our Congress needs to intelligently and cooperatively attempt to solve the Social Security and Medicare benefits issues as well as the spending levels of other welfare type entitlement programs, and others. But given the rather uncomfortable economic conditions the majority of Nugent's constituents are faced with today, what principle was he standing behind and who was he representing when he "weighed the pros and cons, and then stood up and voted no?"
Sometimes in life it is necessary to occasionally compromise our principles, especially if it involves actions to support the needs of people facing tough times. Such passionate compromising is even more critical if you have been chosen to represent the needs of your fellow citizens as a member of Congress.
Donald Ruths, Brooksville