I must take exception with the March 28 column by Martin Dyckman wherein he criticized my bill to grant teachers a $25,000 additional homestead exemption. First of all, this bill was referenced to four committees, not 10 as stated by Dyckman. It has passed two of the four - steady progress at this point in the legislative session.
This would not be a mandate to the counties and municipalities but an option.
In addition, my bill is coupled with another bill that would mandate that Florida teachers be paid at least the national average by 2008. I am far from satisfied with the investment our state makes in educating our children. I am frustrated to watch the majority in Tallahassee consistently favor tax breaks for big corporations and the wealthiest individuals over investment in the future of our state - our children. I will continue to look for innovative ways to do the right thing in the face of such misguided priorities.
A $25,000 homestead exemption will not in and of itself properly compensate teachers for the vital job that they perform. However, it is a step in the right direction if we are to encourage college graduates to pursue teaching as a profession, keep Florida's teachers in Florida and attract teachers from outside Florida.
-- Rep. Roger Wishner, state House District 98, Plantation
Parental injustice
Re: Fathers deserve a say, by Robyn E. Blumner, April 4.
Many times I disagree with Robyn Blumner, but this time she has it exactly right when she says that the Bush administration and the family court system are wrong about a father's rights to parent his children. It should also be noted that the Clinton administration didn't, and the state governments currently don't recognize children's rights to both parents.
The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are such a minor problem in light of the other enormous problems of noncustodial parents. Blumner pointed out many of the absurdities facing the noncustodial parent's ability to protect and parent his children. The thing most people don't realize is that if the child needs any medical care, emergency or otherwise, the noncustodial parent cannot legally authorize any medical treatment, because he has been stripped of his parental rights! He is allowed to pay for it, though.
Thank you, Ms. Blumner, for exposing a small part of the multitude of injustices that are done to the noncustodial parents by our family court systems, a branch of the multibillion-dollar divorce/custody industry.
-- Donald Delaney, St. Petersburg
Think of the children
Re: Fathers deserve a say.
Although I don't agree with Michael Newdow's position on the Pledge of Allegiance, the rest of this column hits the nail on the head. Unfortunately, it seems all too true that our nation's family law court systems see all noncustodial fathers as nothing more than an open bank account. No matter how responsible they are or how much noncustodial fathers love their children, every-other-weekend visitation is the normal time allowed to try to be a part of their children's lives.
Meanwhile, the custodial parent can take the children wherever she wants and with whomever she wants, involving any guy she wants into the children's lives. Meanwhile, the children's father can do nothing but wait for their weekend visitation. Apparently this is what our family law court judges seem to think is in the best interests of our children, as all across the country they seem to keep making the same decision in custody case after custody case.
Regardless of divorce or marital status, our children need the love, nurturing and support of two responsible parents. After all, isn't this what is truly in the best interests of our children?
-- Bruce Cherkas, Pinellas Park
Laughable material
Re: Bruce Reed's Hacks & Wonks in the April 4 Perspective section was hilarious. I laughed aloud at Reed's contention that "to be sure, Bush is running perhaps the most partisan and ideological White House in the modern era," among other whoppers. His "hacks and wonks" scenario was clever, albeit rather heavy-handed; it would have worked wonderfully in Bizarro or elsewhere on the cartoon pages.
I do think that humor, satire and farce have a place in the pages of a modern newspaper, and I welcome these genres. However, I do feel that such material should be appropriately labeled, and not appear under the guise of serious discourse. If you wish to maintain a reputation as a serious newspaper, you might consider forgoing Mad magazine rip-offs in your opinion section.
-- Brad Krones, Tarpon Springs
A telling silence
Re: The two dogs that didn't bark, by Fred Kaplan, April 4.
All the hoopla and criticism of Richard Clarke and his testimony recently regarding terrorism and the Bush administration's reluctance to heed the Clinton administration's warning prior to 9/11 were indeed meaningful, especially when Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA director George Tenet remained silent in their review of his statements.
If Richard Clarke is off-base, George Tenet and Colin Powell would be the first to know. As the article states, "Their silence speaks loudly."
With the Bush administration vilifying former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson and others who have the courage and strength to speak out against President Bush and his deceptive practices, it proves there are committed heroes in this country.
It is hoped that Bush and his administration have not opened another Pandora's box as we view the utter quagmire in Iraq. Wondering what, why and how is not nearly as important as where we are going now and who will lead us out of these dark ages.
-- Norma M. Corry, Sun City Center
Egregious conflict
Re: Eroding our trust in the high court, by Martin Dyckman, April 4.
We unprivileged peons who take time out from our busy lives to answer the call to jury duty, frequently an exercise in total boredom, do it because we recognize a citizen's duty to serve the justice system of a nation governed by law. We quickly learn about conflict of interest when we get excused from serving for that reason, also at the whim of either side's lawyer.
Seldom in this peon's memory has there been a more egregious example of conflict of interest than was demonstrated by Vice President Dick Cheney and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia when they went on a hunting vacation together, despite the fact that Cheney is a principal in a case pending before Scalia's court. And seldom have I heard a more arrogant explanation as to why conflict of interest laws that apply to everyone else don't apply to Scalia.
Scalia may not have to answer to us voters for his part in this disgraceful episode, but Cheney does - and will in November.
-- Joseph H. Francis, St. Petersburg
More home buyer bias
Re: Is Fannie Mae software biased against minority home buyers? April 4.
I want to thank Bill Maxwell and the St. Petersburg Times for publishing the column about Fannie Mae's Desktop Underwriter program. Based upon my experiences, I would say that the program is biased against first-time home buyers as well, and that the people who are using the software are, at best, unprepared for the task.
Recently, my husband and I began preparing to buy our first home. We decided to try going through a credit union only to find that we had to go through a separate company over the phone. The person we talked with did not even know the very basics of mortgage and lending terms. I was amazed that a person in the business of interacting with customers and first-time home buyers did not know even the basic information that is published in several first-time home buyer guides. Additionally, the person claimed to need a full day to run our information through but when we talked the next day, she tried to get us qualified by fiddling with the numbers in the Desktop Underwriter - a process that took a minute at best.
We were thoroughly dissatisfied and disgusted with our experience, and it was only later in our interactions that the person disclosed that she was trying to get us approved through Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac and the Desktop Underwriter program.
-- Bridget Hahm, Tampa
Drug card calculations
I just can't wait to receive the "card" that will save us seniors money on our prescription drugs.
The other day I picked up my regular blood pressure refill from Walgreens. It has gone up $3.10.
If I receive a 10 percent savings with the "card," it will only cost me 97 cents more than it was before.
Isn't the Bush administration great?
-- Elizabeth Poarch, St. Petersburg
[Last modified April 11, 2004, 01:05:45]
