Opinion: Help current veterans before creating more

America's present occupant of the Oval Office has made it his personal agenda to wage war on Iraq at all costs and "damn the torpedo's." He went on national TV to address the issue and try to convince Americans and our Congress that this war is absolutely essential to our future. His war plans will be executed and spearheaded by our outstanding young service members now serving in our Armed Forces. According to Bush, putting these present day veterans in harm's way will resolve everything his daddy failed to do more than 10 years ago when he had the chance.

If President Bush invades Iraq, it will create a whole new group of young veterans. He has no problem asking these fine young troops now serving to go off and possibly make the "supreme sacrifice" in a God-forsaken place that has oil under the sand.

While planning for his new war, he is talking out the other side of his mouth about his plans to veto the new Defense Authorization Bill because of the $18.5-billion to fund the long overdue expansion of the military entitlement programs.

How about adequately taking care of existing veterans before we start a new war and add to the number? What can he possibly be thinking of? Certainly not the welfare of those of us who have served with honor in the past when called upon by previous commanders in chief. And certainly not the young folks that will be on the front lines doing the fighting if he takes America to war.

I'm as patriotic as the next person is, and I love my country and our way of life dearly -- so much so that I made the military my career, serving all over the world and uprooting my family every few years to move on to another place of need. I retired nine years ago as a disabled veteran with the assurance that my country would take care of me and my family in exchange for that service. Now President Bush wants to sweep all the old vets under a rug and deny us our just compensation and benefits we earned for all those years of service.
-- Ron Kaiser, Gulfport

Ways to raise the funds

Re: Bush threatens veto over new pension benefit.

Tucked away on Page 8 in the paper was an article about military entitlement programs. President Bush wants to eliminate new pension benefits for disabled military retirees that could cost $18.5-billion to $58-billion during the next decade. Doesn't it seem odd that the providers of these figures are so inept that they give us a range of $40-million or more than twice as much as their low figure.

It appears to me that they are against the Defense Department meeting its obligations. Possibly President Bush needs to look into other avenues of raising these funds, i.e., providing security for only one year for ex-presidents; freezing salaries of all elected officials and eliminating their pensions until the budget is balanced; reducing all foreign aid by 70 percent. Possibly a means test can be established to limit the amount of retirement pay for politicians, since many of them acquire a net worth of millions during their terms at an average pay of $100,000 over the years of their "service." It's too bad their retirement isn't based on Social Security like most Americans. These ideas would fund a myriad of projects.
-- Janice Miller, Oldsmar

Military doesn't deserve this criticism

Re: Pentagon admits not fully explaining secret '60s tests, Oct. 10.

Leave it to the liberal media to criticize the military today about what happened 40 years ago during the Cold War with Soviet communism. During that time, the Army Chemical Corps was charged with developing offensive chemical and biological warfare systems, and at the same time developing defensive countermeasures against offensive systems that the Soviets might use against the United States.

These efforts were classified for obvious reasons. It would have been stupid to tell your potential enemy what research was being conducted and why. It seems that similar reasoning should prevail today, yet the Pentagon is berated for not releasing all the details.

Chemical and biological agents are aimed at incapacitating or killing human beings. There comes a time when research cannot answer all the questions without limited and controlled tests on human volunteers. These tests were developed and supervised by the best brain power in the military, in civilian research facilities and in medical colleges. I speak from experience as I was a volunteer, along with many others, in a test to determine the physiological response to exposure to a chemical agent. No medals or recognition were offered, just an opportunity to help the defense effort of the United States.
-- Jack Vanderbleek, colonel, U.S. Army (retired),

A progressive environmental agenda

Re: An unnatural silence, Oct. 14.

This story correctly credits Gov. Jeb Bush for fighting for strong new environmental protection laws. The governor's "Performance Based Permitting" bill would deny environmental permits to companies that routinely break the rules. Thank you to the St. Petersburg Times for breaking the "unnatural silence" on the governor's unprecedented, progressive environmental protection agenda. Hopefully, the Times will enthusiastically support this proposal in the Legislature.

It is important that we make environmental performance count.
-- David B. Struhs, secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee

A river's many woes

Re: An unnatural silence.

The Times performed a great public service in publishing this article. However, it probably came too late -- it should have been written several years ago; the plant construction is now near completion and nothing can be done to remove it.

However, what is probably the most important and dangerous aspect of the plant's location was not mentioned -- that is the labyrinth of underground caves and water passages that honeycomb the underground lime rock throughout Suwannee County, including areas beneath the plant and into the Ichetucknee. Ask any cave diver about these caves and you will be astonished. The lime rock, which contains interconnecting, water-filled caves, because of its having been partially dissolved over the centuries, is why the mine was located where it is, i.e., the location's value holds its greatest danger.

I, too, am dismayed and saddened by the plant's location because my family owns a cottage on the nearby Santa Fe River, where my six children played and swam, including the Ichetucknee River and state park, their entire adolescent lives. My grandchildren had hoped to do the same.

However, while we are casting stones, lime rock or otherwise, let's place another blame on boaters and the absence of state laws that are destroying the Santa Fe River at a far greater rate than the mine will. Large boats with their foot-high wakes have eroded away the river's banks, in some places lime rock, several feet during the last 30 years. These rivers are not only beautiful but narrow, hence vulnerable, and serve as sanctuaries for the docile manatees. As the banks are eroded by the wakes, trees fall into the river, and the silt from the erosion covers the rivers' bottoms to an inch or so in depth. Water that was once clear and clean enough to drink is now muddy. Because the wakes continuously destroy the egg-containing "beds" used by fish in springtime, fishing is no longer worthwhile.

So, not only does industry sometimes damage our environment, but destruction is also caused by the unfeeling, careless actions of us citizens.
-- Gilbert M. Brown, Dunedin

Useful information

Re: An unnatural silence.

Thank you for the Ichetucknee Springs article. It's refreshing to see an issue brought to light that can enable the voter to make an informed decision.

I may be idealistic, but it continues to baffle me why politicians allow themselves to be controlled by big business instead of doing the right thing for the people of their state and the future of their world.
-- Donna Tewksbury, Seminole

Using an ax instead of a scalpel

The feature on the Bush/McBride race and Ichetucknee Springs would have been a really stunning textbook example of liberal media bias were it not for the clumsy reporting.

Ever since Howard Troxler mentioned it in his column recently, Times editors and reporters have changed their collective chant from "education, education, education" to "environment, environment environment."

The story's quote from an inner-tube vendor that "the river will be ruined in five years" failed to mention his credentials. Is the man an expert of some kind? If not, how relevant is his opinion. Isn't he just another guy out to make a buck off of the river, like the folks at the mine?

Quotes from people who were appointed by Gov. Lawton Chiles won't sway this reader. It's not wrong to include them; you just need to consider the context and attribute them as such.

There is a lot of very good "sauce" in this year's election campaign, but this story stuck to some pretty obvious themes. A scalpel is needed but readers got a choppin' ax instead.
-- Jim Parker, Tampa

Where do they stand on trade?

Trade is not an issue that the Jeb Bush and Bill McBride are talking about in the gubernatorial election. While the school system and the Department of Children and Families are important issues, trade is also an issue Florida voters should pay close attention to. Since taking effect in 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement has cost the United States nearly 1-million jobs and Florida tens of thousands of jobs. Florida has lost 1,000 small and medium-sized farms since NAFTA went into effect.

NAFTA has also introduced Americans to the corporate lawsuit provision, which protects investor profits when they conflict with public interest laws. Under NAFTA, foreign corporations have claimed $13-billion from taxpayers. In July, Congress granted President Bush "fast track" trade authority, which eliminates Congress' constitutionally granted power to set terms of trade policy. This trade bill also included authorization for the Bush administration to negotiate a 31-nation NAFTA expansion, known as the Free Trade Area of the Americas. The FTAA not only threatens to eliminate more jobs, but also will expose public interest laws (labor laws, environment laws, etc.) throughout the Western Hemisphere to potential lawsuits from corporations.

Since Congress now more than ever must fight to ensure that trade agreements represent our interest and will work for the state of Florida, it's crucial that we know where Jeb Bush and Bill McBride stand on this issue.
-- Lucas Seipp-Williams, Eckerd College Florida Fair Trade Campaign, St. Petersburg

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

Back to Opinion

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

From the Times
Opinion page