Bright Futures for whom, exactly? | Letters
Here’s what readers are saying in Sunday’s letters to the editor.
Opponents of a measure that would have altered Florida's Bright Futures scholarship program spoke to the Senate Education Appropriations subcommittee from a remote site on March 23. They won some concessions.
Opponents of a measure that would have altered Florida's Bright Futures scholarship program spoke to the Senate Education Appropriations subcommittee from a remote site on March 23. They won some concessions. [ The Florida Channel ]
Published Mar. 28
Updated Mar. 28

Out of state? Out of your mind?

Grandkids could get tuition break | March 24

I have been upset about — and have called my state legislators concerning — proposals that would limit the Bright Futures Scholarship program. My son, who was born in Florida, got his undergraduate degree in microbiology from the University of South Florida with Bright Futures. He got a doctorate in microbiology from Harvard. He now has a great job at a biotech company in Boston. I have many friends whose children also went to college with help from Bright Futures. It has been a wonderful program. Now the legislators are considering limiting it. Then I read in the paper that they want to let students whose grandparents live in Florida pay in-state tuition. What?! Where do they come up with this stuff? Take money away from residents so that we can give out-of-state students a break. When are these people going to start serving the people who they represent? They need to be voted out.

Ann Jamieson, St. Petersburg

Law-abiding gun owners aren’t the problem

In wake of shootings, president, Dems vow gun vote | March 24

It seems to me that all of the laws and legislation that have been passed do not seem to work. Writing more rules is not going to work. The reason is simple. Millions of law-abiding people who own weapons are not the ones who are responsible for murder and carnage. Any criminal or a deranged individual who wants to can obtain a weapon illegally if they need to.

Banning “assault weapons,” which are misnamed, will only prevent law-abiding people from obtaining them, but the criminal will always be able to obtain them. Should we ban automobiles because a deranged individual decides to drive into a crowd of people? Taking away weapons from law-abiding citizens who have done no wrong but wish to protect themselves under the Second Amendment are the only ones would be hurt. If this misguided frenzy to disarm everyone should ever be enacted, they will have no way to protect themselves. Sadly, the police arrive only after a crime has been committed. By then, it is too late.

Charles Salzmann, New Port Richey

Get help to those who need it

In wake of shootings, president, Dems vow gun vote | March 24

The latest shootings around the country have once again brought outrage from the most out-of-touch people on this topic, as many politicians do not reside in the real world on lots of issues and just keep focusing on what seems to be the easy solution: Take away the guns. The bigger focus needs to be on helping people who recognize a possible problem with their friend or family member find some resources to get those people some help. Most of these stories have the same responses afterward pertaining to different kinds of mental problems being observed, but not enough times is something even attempted to be done about it. Creating a more useful network of assistance would do a much better job of helping to prevent future occurrences.

James Jones, Tampa

What has changed?

Kids in custody highlight Biden’s border challenge | March 23

Thousands of migrant kinds are being held in what, effectively, are cages at the border by the Biden administration and sleeping on the floor. The only difference under the new boss is that thousands more are being held, and the media is not calling them “cages.”

John Spengler, Spring HillHed goes here.

Taxing carbon is best way

Don’t be fooled by ‘net zero’ pledges | Column, March 23

Rachel Kyte’s piece is an excellent description of why we need to price carbon. Words are cheap, and costs are real. All industries will achieve net zero emissions much quicker if the price of carbon rises. Rising prices will also stimulate the development of green-energy alternatives. Money is the strongest and most effective motivator we have. Properly pricing carbon dioxide pollution will achieve carbon emission reductions much more quickly than rules and regulations. This market-driven solution is also very durable, and less subject to alterations by outside influences. Congress should pass the policy outlined in the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. It is effective, efficient and fair. It reduces carbon emissions without relying on the proper enforcement of complex regulations, and will stop the green washing to which Ms. Kyte correctly referred.

Chelsea Freeman, St. Petersburg

Be a warrior and mask up

As U.S. parties, Europe fighting third virus wave | March 24

For more than a century, our military has been called around the globe to protect the freedom and lives of those attacked by tyrants and dictators, our warriors are protected by composite helmets, heavy flak jackets and cumbersome body armor to help them save lives of those threatened. Today we are in another war, a battle against a deadly coronavirus that has killed millions of people in the world in just over one year, including far more than half a million in the United States. To stop these deaths, we do not have to wear that cumbersome battle gear — just a lightweight mask as we go out and about our daily business. It is a no-brainer. So mask up. You my not only safe your own life but the lives of your parents, grandparents, loved ones, little Susie, etc., etc. It is really that simple.

Walter (Sgt. Red) Hansen, Largo