Letters to the Editors

Floridians will pay less under McKay proposal

Re: Lobbyists plan war on tax idea, Dec. 28.

You tell us that Florida's real government -- business lobbyists -- are mounting an all-out assault on Senate President John McKay's proposal to extend the sales tax to services and reduce the sales tax rate from 6 percent to 4 percent, and you quote lobbyist Cory Tilley's statement: "These are people who really believe this (McKay's proposal) is a tax increase on Floridians and a tax break for out-of-state tourists."

Since when does a tax-rate reduction become a taxpayer increase? It doesn't, and claiming that it does is a gross distortion of truth. The truth, of course, is that the vast majority of Floridians will pay less sales tax under the McKay proposal. Only those who purchase formerly non-taxable services will become part of the taxpayer base, as they should.

As for Tilley's lament that McKay's proposal provides tourists with a "tax break": Are we Floridians so very proud of exporting a major portion of Florida's tax burden onto the backs of out-of-state visitors that we would deny them the same tax break we ourselves would enjoy?

Who do you think speaks the plain truth to us voters, Tilley or McKay?
-- Joseph H. Francis, St. Petersburg

Our outdated tax system

Reading Steve Bousquet's Dec. 29 column, An antitax spin on tax reform plan, I'm left with little doubt as to who is in charge of this state, and who the constituents of legislators who oppose tax reform are. They are the lobbyists for bankers, big sugar, real estate agents and the broadcasting industry. Those special interests, who have been given a megaphone to state their cases in Tallahassee while average, tax-paying Floridians are forced to speak in a whisper, feel it's unfair for their clients to pay taxes like the rest of us. That's not what I would consider a very civic-minded attitude.

McKay's reform plan looks simple; it asks big business to pull its weight while cutting taxes for everyone in this state. What could possibly be the problem with that? Of course the plan doesn't go far enough, and we need to constantly look for other sources of revenue.

We're the fourth most populous state in the nation and it's time we start acting like it. Because of our outdated tax system, we now have some serious financial problems in this state, along with the other problems not unlike those in California. However, we're not going to solve these California problems with Mississippi solutions. If the big-business lobbyists have something to offer in the form of solutions then I think we should listen, but so far all we hear from them is they have the money to keep the average Floridian paying more in taxes while they continue to pay nothing.

To understand where these people are coming from all we need do is remember what lobbyist J.M. "Mac" Stipanovich said after the end of a legislative session a few years ago, and I quote, "I don't know what the poor people got, but the rich people are happy and I'm ready to go home."
-- Dave Jones, Zephyrhills

Health care a primary concern

Re: The only rational health care solution, letter, Dec. 31.

The letter writer had the complete solution to the medical chaos that exists in the medical care of this country. Coverage for all citizens would not only give people economic freedom but peace of mind. Peace of mind is essential to good health!

I am formerly from New Zealand, and the citizens there get adequate care and all prescriptions drugs they need, as in most European countries and Canada. Why cannot America give health care to its citizens in spite of greedy insurance companies and HMOs? This should be a primary concern for the president and Congress when it convenes.
-- Esther Spera, R.N., Tampa

Little interest in well-being

Re: Arsenic from China arrives in "toxic trade," Dec. 29.

I've followed with interest your series of articles about the use of arsenic in pressure-treated wood. The latest one highlights another group of people who suffer from negative effects: This time it's not the consumer, but those directly involved in the production.

Mentioned again, this time by your fine writer Julie Hauserman, is that the producers can and do pressure-treat wood with substances that aren't as poisonous (those weren't specified, but I understand borates are effective while being less toxic). Yet the producers, along with the retailers, are strongly opposed not only to a phase-out and the replacement with a less toxic treatment but also to even offering safer alternatives alongside the current wares. The reason given was the greater cost.

Apparently, producers and retailers aren't volunteering details regarding the cost differential even though they would have every incentive to do so if the increase were to be of a large percentage. How much would a green-conscious buyer have to pay above the $2.25 that Home Depot now asks for an 8-foot-long 2 by 4 after changeover costs have been absorbed? My guess is the difference would be surprisingly small.

For whatever the amount, the producers and retailers are willing to burden all involved with the consequences that result from producing and disposing of the 34,000 metric tons of arsenic compounds used each year in this country.

Our Constitution states that one of the main purposes of our government is to provide for the general welfare. Our politicians should learn the difference between the well-being of the population at large and the interests of what could be called the "Association of Producers and Sellers of Unnecessarily Toxic Products."
-- Raymond J. Niemi, Seminole

Easy mathematics

Re: Janet Reno's campaign gets star power, Dec. 31.

It's simple mathematics. Janet Reno plus Rosie O'Donnell equals the re-election of Jeb Bush as governor of Florida.

This Republican would like to thank the Democratic Party of Florida. You guys make it so easy.
-- Gary West, St. Petersburg

Al-Arian fired for being disruptive

As a member of the University of South Florida board of trustees, I disagree vehemently with Howard Troxler's Dec. 21 column (Fire Al-Arian if you must, but do it for good reason) as well as with the Times' editorial characterization of the board's recommendation and president Judy Genshaft's ultimate decision to dismiss Dr. Sami Al-Arian (USF's charade, Dec. 21).

Early in the discussion, I voiced a strong opinion that while fundraising and alumni relations are important elements of the university, they were by no means the basis upon which I would consider such a decision. A careful review of the record indicates that disruption to fundraising and alumni relations played no part in the deliberations of the board of trustees.

The safety concerns, disruptions to campus activities, insubordination, as well as Dr. Al-Arian's inability to teach and conduct research as contracted by the state of Florida, all contributed to the violation of his contract with the university. By underemphasizing the disruption and safety issues and overemphasizing the community, donor and alumni impact, the Times ignored the facts upon which the USF board of trustees made its decision.

As president Genshaft noted in her statements, we based our decision on a fundamental question: How much disruption must a university endure because of the manner in which a faculty member exercises his right to express political and social views that are outside the scope of his employment?
-- Rhea F. Law, vice chair, board of trustees, University of South Florida, Tampa

Dolphin got life in prison

Re: Not such a pretty picture, Dec. 10.

I congratulate the St. Petersburg Times and Jeanne Malmgren for having the courage to print the truth about the altered lives of animals in captivity. After so much misinformation was written in the letters sent to the editor, I thought the truth should be known why so many protests were made by people from all over the world about Sunset Sam being kept at the Clearwater Marine Aquarium.

Our interest in Sunset Sam's plight began because of the many phone calls received about his living conditions and his being kept in total isolation for years. When conditions were questioned, the aquarium denied any violations. A national campaign had to be waged to obtain improvements. The National Marine Fisheries Service hated admitting it had let poor Sunset Sam crash through the cracks. It is true that because we raised out voices on behalf of Sunset Sam, many needed improvements were made. We won't apologize for that.

The aquarium claimed that Sunset Sam was blind in one eye. The experts disputed that, but even if he had lost the vision in one eye, the NMFS revealed that dolphins live full lives in the wild with just one eye. The claim by the aquarium that Sam would be attacked by sharks if released was pure hype to justify wanting to keep its star attraction in captivity. If the aquarium didn't have a dolphin attraction, who would spend money to see an abandoned sewer plant? With Sunset Sam, there were celebrities, photo events and lots of paying public. If he was truly not releasable, the Garden Club and I would have donated money as we do now to legitimate rehab centers. From anyone's armchair, it was clear that Sunset Sam needed help.

Those who howl at what a large concrete tank Sunset Sam had are clearly indifferent to a dolphin's needs. Nature formed the dolphin in the shape of a torpedo so that it could travel great distances. Just for pleasure during the summer, Florida dolphins may swim more than a thousand miles to Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts before returning home. So, please, don't claim his little tank was large. Sunset Sam was the sad portrait of a dolphin in a prison, which must have been excruciating to endure all those years.

For years, Sunset Sam was kept in total isolation. The records reveal that the aquarium bosses occasionally threw a turtle in to keep the dolphin company and that a turtle, in their opinion, was adequate company. But experts did not agree. They said the rough play of a dolphin was very uncomfortable for the (endangered) turtle and there was no meaningful interaction between a large-brained dolphin and a turtle. Although NMFS is pro-captivity, it had to admit that substantial deficiencies existed. The same arguments in the letters were used in England, which once had more than 55 aquariums. Today, with the realization that dolphins suffer in captivity, no dolphinariums remain in the United Kingdom. South Carolina, by law, forbids dolphin and whale aquariums. The United States is waking up to the captivity industry's hype.

Finally, the NMFS expert (who also worked for the marine mammal captivity industry) said Sam could make it in the wild but to go ahead, improve his living conditions, get him a companion and he could stay. That was a sad call. Sunset Sam, the wonderful dolphin that had never harmed anyone or committed any crime, got life in prison.
-- Mary Mosley, the armchair environmentalist, Tarpon Springs, and Mark Berman, assistant director, International Marine Mammal Project of Earth Island, San Francisco

Share your opinions

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.
--

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright