Advertisement

Read the winning 2014 Letters of the Month

 
Published Dec. 19, 2014

Readers of the Tampa Bay Times are an opinionated bunch. Each week, they send several hundred letters to the editor on issues ranging from foreign policy to health care to recycling. They often disagree, and that is a good thing.

We want our letters to reflect the full richness of public debate around Tampa Bay, and we do not want them all to echo the opinions of the Times' editorial board.

Some letters stand out for their clarity, personal observations and thoughtful opinions. Each month, we recognize one writer as the winner of the letter of the month. Readers can help choose from finalists each month at www.tampabay.com/opinion, and below we have complied this year's winning letters as well.

We invited recent winners to visit with us to talk about the editorial board and to honor their contributions to the editorial pages. Congratulations to them, and we invite all of our readers to participate in the conversation about the future of Tampa Bay, Florida and the nation.

November 2013

Medicare for all is the solution

All the recent hoopla about the Affordable Care Act has generated a lot of heat but not much light. In all the angry finger-pointing, both parties have missed the main point. Obamacare is flawed and cumbersome for the same reason that our existing "system" doesn't work: It is a health insurance system, not a health care system. The obvious answer is a single-payer health care system, Medicare for all.

The administration is running into problems with technology and with cancellation of existing policies precisely because Obamacare is an insurance-based program. So we have to navigate insurance exchange websites, that must then connect up with insurance company databases, that must then correlate with existing insurance coverage, and so on. It's bound to be inefficient and confusing, and also costly.

Insurance companies take at least 20 cents out of every dollar Americans spend on health care; Medicare takes only 2 or 3 cents on the dollar. Health insurance companies are massively profitable, yet most Americans either can't afford health insurance or are very dissatisfied with the coverage they have, which is not only expensive but often not there for us when we need it most.

Those Americans fortunate enough to be on Medicare are very happy with it. Most of us, including President Barack Obama, knew that a single-payer Medicare for all system was by far the best way to reform American health care. But it didn't happen because it wasn't "politically doable." Most of our congressmen and state legislators are more responsive to the corporate interests who pay for their election campaigns than the people they claim to represent. This is true of both Republicans and Democrats. So single payer was never on the table because the health insurance lobby is simply too powerful.

If Obamacare ever gets off the ground, it will be helpful to many low-income Americans who will be able to afford health insurance. But it is a huge windfall for the health insurance industry, just as the Bush administration's prescription drug benefit was a huge windfall for the pharmaceutical industry.

Andrew Rock, Tampa

December 2013

A diplomatic opening

For those Americans buying into the faux outrage over President Barack Obama having the temerity to shake the hand of Raul Castro, I suggest you take a crash course in American History 101.

Richard Nixon, as a sitting U.S. president, visited China, opening relations with a regime responsible for some of the most egregious and inhumane atrocities ever perpetrated against mankind. And he was lauded for the effort.

Are there truly those who fail to realize that a gesture that may open a door to civil dialogue is where diplomacy begins?

Robert Shaw, Madeira Beach

January 2014

Inequality shredding social fabric

It would appear that all of a sudden politicians of all colors have discovered the appalling inequality in this country. President Franklin Roosevelt over 70 years ago famously said: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

Unfortunately, inequality has increased exponentially since FDR's words and very little has been done to help. Politicians on the right resist any effort to help the people in need, based on the mantra that it would be wealth redistribution from the top to the bottom, which they equate with socialism and/or communism.

Nobel laureate economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz have warned for years of the serious dangers of inequality in our country. It erodes the social fabric of our society.

Those who argue that redistribution from the top to the bottom is socialism have no problem whatsoever accepting redistribution from the bottom to the top, which is exactly what is happening. In a system where the top people earn ever more and the middle and lower classes earn ever less, serious societal problems will arise.

Frederick Douglass also understood this back in the 19th century when he said: "Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe."

And so it is clear that fighting inequality is not some obscure communist tool to eradicate capitalism in this country, but rather a just, moral, and fair goal to achieve.

Patrick Bauer, Wesley Chapel

February 2014

The problem is secrecy, money

In his defense of the lobbying profession, Darryl Paulson either overlooked or conveniently avoided the real issue. The problem is not with those who practice the art, or with the profession itself. Few question their right to exist or their value.

The problem is the undue influence they wield as a result of the vast sums of money at their disposal, money that they pass both over and under the table into the eager hands of those we send to Washington to represent our interests. Worse is the fact that most of their contacts with Congress are cloaked in secrecy. Shut the spigot off, bring the contacts out into the sunshine, and "lobbyist" would no longer be a four-letter word.

Robert A. Shaw, Madeira Beach

March 2014

A search for fairness

A few questions came to mind when I read this letter on undocumented workers:

• Can you imagine being unable to feed your family? Would you not go where you would have a chance to provide for them? U.S. employers who are most concerned with their bottom line actively seek cheap labor. Are those employers in no way responsible for the immigration situation?

• Can you imagine being deported and having your children separated from you? These immigrants came here in order to provide for their families. Before there were tight border controls, it was common for workers to send earnings back home and return to their families when the seasonal jobs were over; now they are forced to be permanently displaced and raise their families here.

• Can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any of these people in our workforce? Who would pick the food to put on our tables? Under the best of circumstances, these workers put in long days in the hot sun doing backbreaking work for poverty wages. We don't see unemployed Americans rushing to apply for these jobs.

We are no different from these immigrants. We all have the same yearnings and wishes for the well-being of our families. We have chosen to benefit from their services, therefore we need to give back to them. For the 11 million undocumented workers currently in our country, a path to citizenship — which would be a long and arduous process for them — provides the only fair resolution to this situation.

Anne Burnham, Tarpon Springs

April 2014

Another punch to the middle class

This "land grab" is the knockout punch for the middle class. A few years ago, Wall Street saw the banks making money on real estate loans. The Street grabbed the mortgage market and sliced and diced the now-commodified home mortgages into collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs. When the mortgage pools turned out to be fakes, it tanked the market and middle class pension funds. That was the first sucker punch.

We're now just about a minute into the second round when, in the land rush, those very same Wall Streeters, using money from the first scam, decide to swoop in and buy all of those homes whose owners they conned into foreclosure. Now, even someone with preapproved credit can't compete with their cash offers. Sorry, Joe the Plumber.

So, after they sucked the consumer dry of any equity by overinflating the housing market, they've now turned the middle class into permanent renters. Given Wall Street's predilections for taking, not giving, maintenance won't be a top priority. In fact, it will have no priority. They'll hold for a while, generating income (without associated maintenance costs) and then start selling CDOs consisting of the housing rental income streams. After that, they'll sell real estate investment trusts or mutual funds back to the consumer, and because the investment bankers will no longer will have any economic incentive in owning the homes, they'll dump the houses (with thousands of dollars in deferred maintenance), just in time for consumers to start buying houses again.

And then the Street will start on the next scam.

Kenneth L. Weiss, Treasure Island

May 2014

Lawmakers imperil environment

Thank you to the Tampa Bay Times for the important articles and editorials about the Florida Legislature and lack of money allocated to springs cleanup.

The pictures of lawmakers hugging and congratulating themselves after finishing work on the budget was infuriating. There are a lot of issues clamoring for attention, but springs cleanup should have been a priority. How can lawmakers not know or not care that environmental health is essential to human health and the health of the economy?

I grew up in Pinellas County before electronic distractions and we were always outside, enjoying and appreciating the beauty of our salt water and fresh water resources. Swimming with the mermaids at Weeki Wachee in the '60s, tubing down the Ichetucknee River in the '70s, and canoeing down the Rainbow River with my children in the '90s was as close to paradise as one could get. I still think Florida is beautiful, but we must repair and actively care for this fragile beauty.

How can our lawmakers, Republican and Democrat, many with children and grandchildren, fail to take immediate action or, worse, make deals with big business at the expense of Florida's environment and our future?

Amy C. Kelly, Palm Harbor

June 2014

Childhood trauma often ignored

As a licensed mental health counselor, I believe that one of the difficulties in finding school improvement answers lies in not asking this question: What is stopping kids from learning? One answer is probably the trauma of adverse childhood experiences.

Demographically, the listed schools struggle with high poverty. Where there is high poverty, there are high levels of adverse childhood experiences and trauma. Criminal activity, violence, substance abuse and mental illness all take a toll on a child's ability to learn.

The human body is programmed to react to emergencies with a flood of cortisol and adrenaline. Emergencies do not allow time for reflection and thoughtful consideration. The thing is, if life is a permanent emergency, that same reaction interferes with higher learning. When schools try to handle difficult behavior with punishment, referrals and expulsion, they inadvertently retrigger the emergency reaction. And things get worse.

Across our country, school districts are recognizing that most challenged schools have to shift from a punishment to a problem-solving approach in handling difficult behavior and poor classroom performance.

And improvement, while slow, is happening. San Francisco's El Dorado Elementary used trauma-informed and restorative practices, and suspensions dropped 89 percent. Wellness centers, calming corners, buddy classrooms and, above all, trauma-informed staff – from the principal to the maintenance team — can transform a child's ability to learn.

Juliana Menke, St. Petersburg

July 2014

Doers, doubters and complainers

The president accuses Congress of doing nothing. Congress accuses the president of doing nothing, but then wants to sue or impeach him when he does something.

If Congress would do something instead of nothing, then President Barack Obama might not have to do something to get something done. The Republican talking heads call him weak because he has done nothing, then accuse him of being a dictator when he does something.

Obama has done next to nothing in Iraq instead of something. President George W. Bush did a lot of something when he should have done nothing, and we all know how well that worked out. It appears that Obama's doing next to nothing in Iraq is the correct something that needs to be done. In the meantime, while our government is doing nothing, the economy is growing. And that is something.

Alan Raun, Largo

August 2014

No one looking out for the ratepayers

The basic problem with the Duke Energy situation is that legislators are primarily lawyers and not businessmen and have little or no exposure to investments.

For centuries there have been three primary groups in business transactions: 1. Customers who buy products or services; 2. Companies who produce; 3. Shareholders (investors) who assume the risk of investing to gain the rewards of the profits, if any.

Typically customers who are dissatisfied with the service or cost leave and go to a competitor. Public utilities are a monopoly so customers are stuck and regulators' role is to look out for their interests. The problem apparently began in 2006 when legislators, with obvious lobbying help from the utilities, decided they would change the relationship and pass the cost (and risk) of ownership from the company to the customers (ratepayers). This corruption of the balance has given Duke (formerly Progress Energy) a unique environment. They do not have to raise money from the investment community, which is sophisticated and would demand a higher return on riskier ventures. The money comes from customers who have no say in decisions, nor their "return on investment," which is actually a higher electric rate.

It is good that Duke can report record earnings while charging record rates. This should be the concern of the regulators. The PSC (Preserve Shareholder Compensation) has proven to be deaf to any voices other than that of the utilities. The recent virtual elimination of investments in energy efficiency merely compounds the lack of consumer interest. Since they pay no attention to citizens, the citizens (taxpayers) should pay them nothing in return. Have them look to the utilities for all their compensation. Maybe they can even get a hunting trip to the King Ranch added.

Jim Hunter, Lutz

September 2014

Hollowed-out universities

Thanks to Dave Levinthal for his incisive report on the corruption of academic integrity at Florida State University, my alma mater. I used to tell my students that a university was like a zoo; a poor zoo had only a few kinds of animals, but a good zoo had representatives of as many species as possible, including rare and unusual ones. The worst university would be one in which all the music professors taught flute, all the history professors specialized in the Civil War, or all the economics professors were libertarians. That would be a sorry excuse for an education and a disservice to the students, their parents and the future of the nation.

Privately funded "think tanks" proliferated in the past decades when publicly funded universities resisted being bullied by special interests on a variety of issues such as public energy policy or global warming. Many of these are nothing more than collections of people paid to spin particular political agendas. There is no academic freedom or tenure in such an institution; independent thinking is the one thing one must not do.

The new strategy of special interests such as the Koch brothers seems to be to get their pet legislators to underfund the universities and then to buy them up on the cheap like so many bad mortgages and turn them into cut-rate think tanks. Who knows, in a strange twist on the Stockholm effect, a desperate university might even be inclined to hire one of those legislators to be its president, especially if he promised to use his connections to restore some of that lost funding. Of course, those connections will want something back for their money. As professor Bruce Benson felt the need to inform his FSU colleagues, "There is no free lunch."

Suppose one of these new Koch economics professors, selected for his already made-up mind and approved by Charles Koch, began to develop a different and more nuanced way of understanding the world? Would Koch withdraw his funding? Why would anyone with intellectual integrity accept an academic position if part of the job description was, implicitly, never changing his mind?

I'm offering to donate $500 to FSU, but I do insist on getting power of approval over the next two faculty hires in European history. "How dare you?" I expect to hear. "What sort of institution do you think we are?" To quote an old joke, we've already established what you are. What we're doing now is haggling over the price.

Richard Long, Temple Terrace

October 2014

Judge officials by deeds, not words

I love the sudden "election season conversions" of our incumbent legislators who have been feeding at the Duke Energy banquet table for years by doing their bidding for them in Tallahassee, but now, right before the election, say let's "hold them accountable" or "take them to the woodshed."

These same incumbents should have voted to end Duke's nuclear subsidy giveaway at least two years ago (and should never have passed it in the first place), and certainly they should demand refunds from the billing cycle scandal.

But frankly, I'd be a bigger believer if these newly converted GOP legislators would: (1) send back every dollar of Duke campaign contributions; (2) pass legislation that doesn't allow Duke and the other monopolized utilities to be so inefficient with our electrical grid (no longer should their corporate missions be: "Go ahead and waste more so that we get to sell more"); and (3) most importantly, take the legislatively created financial handcuffs off our state that prevent us from moving forward with promoting solar energy and wind farms.

Only when I see all of those things will I know that it's something more than politics as usual.

Until then, if you vote these incumbents back in, don't be surprised if they will have another sudden change of heart the day after the election when Duke opens up its checkbook again.

Gary Gibbons, Tampa