Re: Saggy pants
Dress code needs added muscle
For 16 years I tried to enforce rules that were written by the School Board. Mainly dress code. To my dismay I spent more time battling the administration than the students. It seemed to me that they would pick and choose who got written up for inappropriate dress. They would overlook some students and come down hard on others. Saggy pants were not the only issue; high hem lines and low neck lines also play a very important role with the girls.
I was reprimanded many times for telling students that their dress did not meet code. If I went to administration they would investigate it at their convenience and later tell me I was overreacting. They said the student was within the guidelines. Guidelines are fine, but whose guidelines?
The students aren't totally at fault here. Television ads promote this type of attire and the parents bow down to their children. I also used to see how some of the parents would come to parent-teacher conferences — Daisy Duke shorts and tank tops and dads would wear "wife beater'' T-shirts and tattoos exposed to the fullest. What you wear out in public is your business and tattoos are a symbol of freedom of expression, but if you are attending a meeting for your child with their teachers, you should dress appropriately. Would these people dress this way if they were going to meet with their own boss? Teachers and staff should follow this rule as well.
Uniforms would be the best solution. Parents would save money in the long run. As for legislation enforcing the dress code, it absolutely is needed. Someone has to take over since the School Board is afraid to. It's been proven that a child will have better behavior and better grades by having uniforms in the school. Lee County school system proved that.
If today's generation doesn't care how they look in school, then they'll never be successful in the work force. The old saying is true: Clothes make the man. Or woman.
Vinny Androsiglio, Port Richey
County has a chance to resuscitate pools | July 22 editorial
Give taxpayers their money back
How about this novel idea?
Give the money back to the taxpayers in a rate reduction.
Terry Schrader, San Antonio
Nugent's e-mail is misleading | July 22 letter
Onus on Obama to prioritize
At issue is an e-mail I sent explaining that Social Security and other essentials like troop salaries can continue to be paid in the event that a deal isn't reached by Aug. 2. Next month, the federal government will take in roughly $170 billion in revenue. Its total spending obligations add up to roughly $304 billion. That leaves the federal government about $130 billion short. Nobody is arguing that we can pay for everything without having to borrow more money. In fact, that's what the whole debate we're having is about.
What I explained in my e-mail, however, is that we can take the $170 billion that comes in next month and if all else fails, use it to cover the cost of Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare ($28.6), Medicaid ($21.4), troop pay ($2.9), veterans benefits ($2.9), unemployment insurance ($12.8), federal courts and law enforcement ($1.4), food and housing assistance for low-income families ($16), IRS refunds ($3.9), Small Business Administration ($0.3), and finally, so that we guarantee that we do not default, $29 billion for the interest we owe on our debt. According to the Washington Post (not exactly a partisan Republican newspaper), at the end of all that, we will have $4 billion left over.
If the authority to prioritize payments for Social Security and the troops is unclear, then the president has a choice. He can pay the bills in the order that they come in or he can prioritize remaining revenues as I have described above and challenge Congress or the courts to stop him. The point is, he has a choice. For our part, Congress has sent letters, offered legislation, and the leaders from both parties in both chambers have stood up and confirmed our desire for him to prioritize. He has a choice.
None of this is meant to minimize the danger of failing to reach an agreement. That danger is very real and it is something that no American should take lightly. At the end of the day, we are all in this together.
U.S. Rep. Rich Nugent,
This used to be a nice little town
Let's take a walk through time. In Port Richey, 1976-1982, State Road 52 was one lane each direction, as was Little Road, Rowan Road and State Road 54. We had two high schools and two middle schools that I remember. Regency Park, Embassy Hills, Jasmine Lakes, Gulf Highlands and a few other subdivisions were under a construction boom. Seniors from all over the north were buying homes and relocating to what I thought was a really nice town.
The kids of those days (I was one of them) went to school, we learned and the majority of trouble we got into was fist fights, stealing some oranges and grapefruits from the seniors' trees and we had some burglaries. What we did not have were rapes, armed robberies and murders. Why? Parents were allowed to discipline their children as were the schools. We had the paddle and believe me it worked without causing undo damage to the children. The children were respectful of their parents and teachers.
Jump to the present. SR 52 and 54 and Little and Rowan roads have way too much traffic. The new subdivisions of the 1970s no longer have seniors riding their trikes in the evening. We now have teen thugs walking our streets harassing anyone they can. We have rapes and murders. We have more schools, more students and half the teachers are afraid of them. Why? If a parent or a teacher disciplines a child the child or a passerby calls the police.
Children are giving birth to children. These youngsters have no clue how to raise a child, and those who think they do teach their kids the meaning of being disrespectful to others. What happens 20 years from now?
Joe Everhart, Port Richey