Today's Letters: Amendment is no way to save homes

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published September 27, 2007

Judge: Tax ballot misleads Sept. 25, story 

This story made me realize that, in all my reading about this amendment, I had missed a very important fact. That is that eventually, if the new property tax amendment is passed, whether through initial choice, movement to a new house or natural attrition, i.e. death of the homesteader, Save Our Homes is a goner.

I had already realized the fatal flaw in the proposal: If you live in a house long enough, you will lose money on the new proposal as opposed to the system now in place. This would most often occur, I reason, in one's last house, when the homesteader has reached an age at which retirement (read fixed-income time) is imminent. This means that, when you can least afford it, your property tax will be rising.

The proposed amendment is especially nasty for its inclusion of actual dollar values in the calculation of the new exemption, as did the original homestead exemption, and will soon make the new exemption as worthless. Who would have thought in 1979, when the $25,000 exemption was proposed, that the median price of a house in Florida would rise to almost 10 times the value of the exemption? Well, actually, anyone with a little more foresight than I would have. Then we might have avoided the necessity of a second amendment to "save our homes."

Tom Porter, Clearwater  

Bush: Pushing insurance expansion is irresponsible Sept. 23, story

Politics in play

President Bush called the Democrats irresponsible for trying to pass an extended health care program for the less fortunate children in this country, a "bill they know will be vetoed." He said that "members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point."

Doesn't he realize that he is the one who will veto this? The reason he gives, "unacceptable taxes," is just as much a political reason as wanting to provide for the well-being of your constituents.

Is allowing someone who is between the official poverty level and making wages high enough to afford the ever-rising premiums of the private sector, a little leeway in their medical expenses, at least for their children, such an evil thing? Maybe paying workers a decent wage would help, but, once again the president is choosing greed over need!

Bill Brasfield, St. Petersburg

Strange philosophies

President Bush is "philosophically" opposed to an extension of a program providing health insurance to children whose families can't afford it. This could lead to (gasp!) "socialized" medicine.

He is not, however, philosophically opposed to spending another $200-billion or so of our dollars to support his disastrous Iraq war, which already has consumed enough money to provide health care to everyone in America for years.

Oddly enough, Iraqis have "socialized medicine" (that we pay for) so that when they're shot up by thugs working for lawless "security" firms (yep, we're paying for them as well) they know they'll have access to medical care - if they can make it to the hospital without being fired upon.

Scott Mock, St. Petersburg

Hiding good news Sept. 21, letter

Debt news not good

I certainly understand the letter writer's desire to see something positive reported in the morning paper. War, health care, property taxes, property insurance and much more seem to scream out on a daily basis from the pages of our newspapers.

I would just like to point out some facts in regard to the "good news" that was printed on Page 12A.

The deficit, as reported by the U.S. government, is not the true measure of the difference of total receipts vs. total expenditures. The government is "stealing" from the Social Security Trust Fund to help pay the costs of running the country.

The hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on Iraq are not being accounted for as an annual expense. The interest on the $9-trillion national debt) is more than $400-billion a year and growing. How can anyone be happy about acknowledging a deficit of "only" about $270-billion?

I find it truly sad that, as a people, we now applaud as "good news" the reporting of the deficit as being more than a quarter of a trillion dollars. How this is an example of fiscal responsibility and good stewardship by our elected leaders is beyond me.

The fact that we are leaving this mess to our children and grandchildren makes me sick.

Laurence F. Wydetic, Tampa

N.Y. Times says it erred on ad by MoveOn.orgSept. 24, brief

Scant coverage

Earlier this month, MoveOn.org published a nasty ad in the New York Times that was widely criticized, but the St. Petersburg Times published minimal information.

On Sunday, the New York Times public editor published the results of an investigation. The St. Petersburg Times coverage of the investigation stated that the New York Times should not have given a discount to MoveOn.org for the full-page ad.

The St. Petersburg Times conveniently left out additional information published by the public editor. He stated that "I think the ad violated the Times' own written standards" and that "the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, 'We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.' "

The article in the New York Times also stated that a complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission against MoveOn.org and the New York Times. That wasn't in the St. Petersburg Times' article, though. I guess the St. Petersburg Times is either minimizing news it doesn't like or it wants its readers to stop subscribing and just get their news from the Internet.

Bill Bard, Pinellas Park

Giuliani shamelessly kisses up to gun lobbySept. 23, editorial

More gun bashing

What is the point of your opinion on Rudy Guiliani's latest stance on gun rights? Are you upset that a politician would, horror of horrors, try to change his image for those he is courting for votes? What politician doesn't do that! Or was this just another attempt to bash those of us who support the NRA and our constitutional rights concerning gun ownership? Perhaps both?

For you foolish people (editorial opinionists and fellow travelers) who still don't get it and probably never will, the NRA is supported by law-abiding citizens who are your neighbors, not criminals who could not care less about our laws or the NRA. Will you ever, ever see the difference?!

I would never vote for the phony Guiliani, but I will also never vote to do away with the gun rights in this country either.

Dave Ellis, Dunedin

The wise words of a parrot Sept. 16, Perspective story

Amazing birds

Thank you for the beautiful article about Alex. Alex was an amazing bird and taught us so much about the intelligence and emotions of African gray parrots. These parrots can live 50 to 75 years, which is why it was so sad Alex died unexpectedly at age 31.

I own a wonderful African gray parrot, or shall I say, she owns me. Nemo is 4 years old and is truly amazing with all of her talents and quirks. I look forward to a long life with her.

If you want to learn more about Alex and other African gray parrots, you can visit the Web site at www.alexfoundation.org.

Gina Maniaci, St. Petersburg

Political trickery

Bravo to Weston Mayor Eric Hersh for bringing that lawsuit and to the judge for correctly determining that the ballot language was misleading.

The Republicans, true to form, tried to pull a bait-and-switch on the people of Florida and use blatantly and intentionally misleading language on the ballot. What they are trying to sell is not a "tax cut," but rather a short-term, feel-good exemption that is actually a long-term tax increase and that will immediately and irresponsibly devastate the budgets of Florida cities.

Think about it: If the Republicans were so intent on cutting taxes, why would the amendment phase out the currently existing 3 percent Save Our Homes cap on property assessments? They are dangling a shiny "super exemption" under our noses so that we won't notice them yanking away the Save Our Homes cap. True, you can opt to keep Save Our Homes as long as you stay in your current home, but then it goes away. Forever. For once, the Republicans are not going to get away with their bait-and-switch tactics, or with being able to engage in their typical doublespeak.

Edna Whisler, St. Petersburg

[Last modified September 26, 2007, 23:05:12]