Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Where is the leader who will push us to energy independence?

I agree with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman who says that "the biggest threat to our way of life isn't Islamism, it's petrolism." We have to wean our country off dependence on foreign oil imports (which are capable of holding our economy hostage). Would that we had a president with the foresight and gumption to demand an energy program equivalent to President Franklin Roosevelt's push for a fast-track wartime munitions buildup in World War II.

What if the president went before Congress and declared a state-of-energy emergency? Demand that Congress conceive a new budget and in lieu of pork items like "bridges to nowhere," each state must offer at least one major project to save energy? He could also convene a meeting of state governors and ask their support and input. Suggestions might include:

1. Tax incentives and even subsidies to auto industries to speed conversion to ultrahybrids and vehicles with higher miles per gallon.

2. More ethanol plants and service station pumps.

3. Replacement of all practicable city- and state-owned autos to hybrids.

4. Improve and increase mass transportation.

5. A push to solar panel energy conversions.

6. More use of alternate energy for city electricity.

Can you imagine what the concerted effort of all 50 states could have on lowering our oil dependence? And it could be paid for by canceling the tax break given to our wealthiest, plus an excessive profit tax on the oil industries.

Oh, for such a dynamic leader!

Elizabeth Noone, St. Petersburg

Columnist is out of gas

Re: Gas needs to cost more - not less, April 30.

I've always been concerned that Thomas Friedman was out of touch with reality; but now I'm completely convinced. Does he even own a car; or is he like many other New Yorkers who don't even have to pay for car insurance, let alone gasoline? His proposal of another dollar a gallon tax on gas would bankrupt many small companies and many small households in America. The semisocialist models of European governments are an example of what not to do with our economy.

Then to make himself more ridiculous he proceeds to blame President Bush for a situation that has been building for decades and admiminstration after administration. I'd like to see the Times boycott Friedman's columns permanently, but if not at least a period of three months for his absurd comments.

Claude Hensley, Clearwater

Why add to burden of the poor?

Re: Gas needs to cost more - not less.

In his column Thomas Friedman suggests taxes to keep gas prices at $4 per gallon to solve our dependency on foreign oil.

Why do supposedly intelligent people always think placing the burden on the poor is the answer?

Let's see: Everything people need to subsist moves on oil. Not just the luxury items, but also the bare essentials: from the raw materials shipped to the textile factories to the clothing we buy at Wal-Mart; from seed and fertilizer for the farmer to the food we buy at the grocery store. Yes, let's place the burden of oil dependency on those who can't even afford a scooter.

I, for one, say: No more taxes! Give the poor a break for once, Tom.

Patrick W. Brown, Tampa

Insight into the immigration problem

Re: The one sure immigration fix, by Robyn Blumner, April 30.

I would like to thank Robyn Blumner for her very insightful and accurate appraisal of the illegal immigration problem.

She has pinpointed the root cause of the most pressing domestic issue we face today. The leadership of our country has sold out the American people in order to provide cheap labor for business and agriculture. It wasn't an oversight, it was a deliberate failure to enforce the law of the land in favor of business interests. It was perpetrated by every administration during the last 20 years.

When the average American finally becomes aware of what 12-million more working poor will cost in social welfare and crime, they will realize that they, not business, are paying the tab for cheap labor.

The social implications in terms of costs to our schools and health facilities will far outweigh any benefit cheap labor will return the average taxpayer.

Blumner has presented a clear case for how we got into this dilemma and how we should get out of it.

John Weatherell, St. Petersburg

Don't leave abortion to political whim

Re: GOP brushing off abortion opponents, April 30.

Adam Smith, perhaps unintentionally, showed where the abortion issue truly lies in this country. It's a political hot potato with politicians sticking their fingers in the wind every election cycle to see what their stand should be. Why else would you see politicians changing their stand from previous election cycles and, indeed, making these changes from one event to the next during the same campaign?

Unfortunately, with the reframing of the abortion issue by right-wing pundits and not enough vigilance by prochoice supporters, voters are increasingly misinformed and continue to elect politicians who are eroding the rights of women to make choices.

The choice to end a pregnancy is a personal one that should be made by a woman and her doctor. It should not be left to the whims of politicians trying to gain support from certain constituencies.

Eleanor Cecil, Tampa National Organization for Women, Lutz

Lawmakers are displaying principle

I object to the slant of your April 30 story Division defeated a Bush priority. Why characterize the six Republicans who broke with their party as divisive? You write that Sen. Paula Dockery made her decision based on the wishes of her constituents - which she ascertained and respected. Sen. Dennis Jones does not support Alex Villalobos for Senate president, but did vote to block the amendment.

You give the last word in the article to Sen. Jim King, who suggests that this "fighting" is damaging to the Republican Party. I understand that some politicians want to make every legislative decision an "us vs. them" battle. But most citizens want legislators who are loyal to their constituents, and who make intelligent judgments about matters before them rather than blindly following their party leadership.

When that happens we should characterize the participants as "principled" rather than "divisive" and highlight the cooperation between parties rather than the infighting.

Elaine Ziska, Odessa

Partisanship and personal comments

Re: Congressional blowhards, editorial, April 30.

Poor House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Not only is he labeled by the Times as a blowhard, but a "rotund" one to boot.

One can only surmise the Times didn't have enough space to run equally sophomoric descriptions about the other blowhards cited. Sen. Barbara Boxer could have been labeled with something like, "she of the 18 layers of makeup." Then there was the chance to label Sen. Evan Bayh with something like, "he of the perfect coiffure." And finally, if the Times is willing to label Hastert as "rotund", what gem would it have saved for Sen. Edward Kennedy?

Nobody should hold their breath waiting for the Times to acknowledge poor taste in its description of Dennis Hastert. But, given history, one can imagine the condemnation had the target been some dastardly conservative or Republican. But that wouldn't be a double standard, would it?

Larry Greeley, Trinity

[Last modified May 7, 2006, 09:47:29]