Letters to the Editors

Lawmakers must be good stewards of all public funds

As a member of the Legislative Budget Commission, I want to respond to some of the opinions expressed in the articles and editorial (Tallahassee's fanatics, Jan. 17) written by the St. Petersburg Times regarding federal tax dollars being rejected by the commission

First, let me clarify that the state of Florida has not lost any federal funds. However, I believe it is my duty to scrutinize budget expenditures to ensure that all money, both state and federal, is being spent in a responsible manner. Remember, federal dollars are Floridians' hard-earned tax money, too.

Approval of an underground storage tank cleanup, a public awareness campaign for cardiovascular disease, and funding for the Department of Environmental Protection was simply delayed until we receive further detailed information from the respective agencies. Without question, it is my full intent to maximize the amount of federal dollars coming into our state. It is also my duty to the citizens of this state to be a good steward of the people's money.

The Legislative Budget Commission will reconvene in February, and I firmly believe that we will have the additional information needed to approve these expenditures.
-- Gus M. Bilirakis, representative, Florida House District 48, Tarpon Springs

Proud to be a "Tallahassee fanatic'

Re: Florida lawmakers snub free money, Jan. 16 and Tallahassee's fanatics, editorial, Jan. 17.

As a member of the Legislative Budget Commission, I am writing to set the record straight and correct the misrepresentations and arrogant tone of, to use your word, the "grotesque" editorial referenced above.

In brief, the Legislative Budget Commission reviews state agency requests for funding changes "off-budget," which means when Legislators are not in session.

Several points are important:

1. There is no such thing as "free money" as your misleading headline reflected last week. It is hard-earned taxpayer money that we are considering, not money from Santa or the Tooth Fairy.

2. It is not cardiovascular disease education, child nutrition programs or oil spill cleanup issues that were being questioned. It is the process by which these funds are appropriated that was questioned.

3. Federal money (taxpayer money) was not given up, was not lost. Conservatives do recognize the value of getting Florida taxpayer money back from Washington.

4. A Legislator does not need past experience on an appropriation committee to be able to assess proper fund transfers and adjustments to prior budget expenditures.

5. During the February meeting of the Legislative Budget Commission, the requests that were voted down will be reconsidered, and I fully expect to be able to vote for them.

6. As for this House seat being better left empty, incorrect again. It would be far worse if an "empty suit" were occupying it.

Thank you for referring to me (and my colleagues) as "Tallahassee fanatics." The citizens I represent (especially single-parent families and seniors on fixed incomes) expect no less intensity and vigilance when government spends their money.
-- Leslie Waters, representative, Florida House District 51, St. Petersburg

An outrageous snub

Re: Florida lawmakers snub free money, Jan. 16.

Outraged. That's all I could feel when reading the article about the Legislature, in particular the House, not drawing down federal dollars to help our health care system. First we had state Rep. Frank Farkas, who was leading the charge to do away with mammograms, and now we have state Rep. Leslie Waters voting against dollars (being given to us with no strings attached from the federal government) that would fund a public awareness campaign to lower risks of heart disease, stroke and breast cancer in women. What are these legislators thinking?

One more outrage -- and that is for the Times putting this important article on the bottom of the front page so Harry Potter could be at the top of the page. I only care about Harry Potter if some of his wizards would perform magic on the Legislature to make them act more responsibly.
-- Scott Huffman, St. Petersburg

Snub needs reconsidering

Re: Florida lawmakers snub free money.

Our state lawmakers showed us once again that they waved goodbye to logic a long time ago by turning down no-strings-attached federal money. Why not let our state receive millions in funds for breast cancer awareness, feeding the poor and cleaning up oil spills? The House member who expressed concern about being labeled a "rubber stamp" should be more concerned about acting "dumb as a stump." Hopefully, the Legislative Budget Commission will reconsider its decision next month and support Gov. Bush's call to take advantage of these beneficial grants.
-- Dan Krassner, Largo
NOTE: Krassner ran against Leslie Waters last year in the Republican primary for the District 51 House seat.

Future is dim for Florida women

Re: Florida lawmakers snub free money.

If this is any indication of what the future holds for women in the state of Florida, we had better all move out. Our state Legislature had an opportunity to gain $1-million for the state Department of Health. All the lawmakers had to do was vote to allow the transfer of $59,000 to the Department of Health and the federal government would have sent the state of Florida $1-million to create a media awareness campaign and data collection on heart disease, diabetes, stroke and other health issues in women. The State Budget Commission voted to kill it -- and our very own representative, Gus Bilirakis, voted to kill it. I live in his district, and I would like to know why he would vote down something that would help all of the women in his district? So did Leslie Waters in St. Petersburg. Is this the way they are going to treat women? If so, we (the women) need to defeat them the next time they run for office.
-- Margaret Hyde, public policy chair, Clearwater Branch, American Association of University Women, Clearwater

House members keep it clean

Re: Florida lawmakers snub free money.

Let's see if I understand the issue. House members of a joint budget committee reject acceptance of federal dollars because, in their opinion, state agencies "did not have a sound plan to spend the money." Senate members "harshly criticized the decision as irresponsible" because no state money was required. Apparently the senators consider this money "free." Where does it come from? Why, it comes from taxpayers all over the United States. How is it that free?

It appears to me that spending any tax money without a clear plan of benefit is the equivalent of "pork barrel." Who are providers of pork? I believe we call them "hogs." Who are the heroes in this porcine battle? Why, the House members, "many of them newcomers to budget committees." May these courageous new members, during their terms of service, keep their feet clean by avoiding pig pens.
-- John Christy Clement, Tierra Verde

A hopeful solution to budget crisis

How can the state budget crisis be solved? Here is one suggestion.

About 80 percent of persons in state prison are confined for offenses involving drugs or alcohol. When a judge sends a person to prison for a drug or alcohol offense, it costs the taxpayers at least $20,000 per year. If most of these persons were given a choice of addiction therapy, or prison, it would be significantly less costly, and much more effective.

I am glad our governor's daughter is getting therapy for her addiction. That is "restorative justice." The courts should be giving that same option to many others who are in lockup.

Prison is appropriate, if a murder or other serious crime is committed by a person under the influence. The vast majority of cases are not that serious. Far too many people are being sent to prison. However, when they are released, recidivism records show about two-thirds will be arrested again within three years. "Lockup" does not solve the problem, and the taxpayers are the ones who are punished. "Restorative justice" offers hope for the future.
-- William W. Roughton, Lakeland

No lunch laws

Re: Vending machines beat out veggies, Jan. 13.

I would like to comment on your article concerning kids and what they eat in school lunches. As a student at Northeast High School, I am somewhat offended by the approach this article took on examining high school kids' eating habits at lunch. The article implies that high school kids cannot choose for themselves what to eat because they will choose only unhealthy junk food served by the schools. The soda and candy companies, who pay the schools for the right to sell their products to students, are portrayed as villains who sell foods to kids that are "ruining their health."

This article claims that the solution to the problem is legislative action restricting and limiting the choices that students have at school. This will not work. Sure, kids buy french fries and soda, but often it is due to the lack of good food at the schools. But kids, like everyone else, get tired of the same food day after day. If they find nothing they care to eat in school lunches, they will simply go without. If the Legislature passes laws to limit what kids can eat, the schools will pour money into foods that will likely sit on the counter, day after day, while the students skip the meal or bring their own lunches.

The problem is not that junk food is available. The problem is that parents, and thus, their kids, do not care what they eat at lunch. The parents of the kids eating french fries and Pepsi probably have the same diet as their children. You cannot blame parental neglect on Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Unfortunately some parents do not have self-control and do not teach their kids to eat a wider variety of foods.

Parents, if you are concerned that your kids are eating too much junk food, tell them about it. Ask them to limit their consumption of foods high in sugar and fat. Have nutritious meals at breakfast and dinner. Your children will develop habits based on what happens at home, not at school. Do not encourage the Legislature to impose a ban so that your kids can never have the occasional soda or candy bar that you likely enjoy as well. It is not the Legislature's job to teach your children good eating habits, it is yours.
-- Michael Beck, St. Petersburg

Aneurysm screening essential

Re: Aneurysms can be caught before they kill, Jan. 14.

I appreciated the article concerning the seriousness of an aneurysm, having experienced this condition with my husband. Last May, he was having severe low back pain which would not go away, so I insisted he see my chiropractor, Dr. Stephen Howard. He took an X-ray and immediately sent us to a surgeon who confirmed his findings of an abdominal aorta aneurysm measuring 5.5 centimeters. Although my husband has regular checkups and we are very happy with our primary care physician, we would like to give credit to Dr. Howard for actually saving his life, and I encourage everyone, especially senior citizens, to request this screening on a regular basis.
-- Nedra Ellerbruch, St. Petersburg

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. 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.

© 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