Opinion: A compassionate government is less oppressive

Once again, we have an article that equates government laws and rules with compassion. Sara Fritz writes of a woman who tried to lift a 250-pound disabled child onto a school toilet and now blames her employer for her disability.

Is it just me or has everyone checked their common sense at the door? Could not this woman determine by simply looking that the child would be too heavy to pick up and move? A child weighing that much would appear to most people to be too heavy for one person to move. What surprises me is that there is no mention of the parents suing the school for potential harm to their child by someone not competent to handle a disabled child.

What we all must understand is that sweeping, one-size-fits-all regulations aimed at "helping" people in the private workplace are far from helpful and lack common sense. As a Libertarian, I find it disturbing that the federal government somehow knows better how people should work more effectively than the people who are actually doing the job.

Anything that is funded or regulated by government from our schools to our workplaces has been ineffective and has insidiously and incrementally eroded our basic right to be free from oppressive government. Public schools still rank below their private counterparts in academic excellence regardless of the amount of money thrown at them.

A more common-sense solution: privatize all schools. This would get the government out of what it thinks our children should learn and would put all schools on a competitive footing. If the product (ie: academic achievement of your child) is substandard, you pull your child out and take your money elsewhere. When enough people have done that, maybe the school will get the message that it needs to re-tool how it makes its product.

The same holds for government workplace regulation. Simply because a minority of people complain that their work environment isn't conducive to optimum output, we are all made to suffer with nonsensical and oppressive regulations (ergonomics, minimum wage). Libertarians, unlike Democrats and Republicans, favor the removal of government from our private and business lives and prefer a more common-sense, market-driven approach to our daily activities. Whatever government does, a private company can do better and cheaper and all without taking tax dollars from your wallet. Please visit www.lp.org.

I urge President Bush to repeal the Clinton administration's last-minute, knee-jerk, liberal and oppressive OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) rules as soon as possible. The only way for him to be compassionate is to start by being less oppressive.
-- Joe Haynes, Seminole

Perpetuating irresponsibility

Re: Prenatal care cutbacks proposed, March 3.

I'm sorry, but the story of a 38-year-old woman in drug rehab and six months pregnant who cannot afford prenatal care does not evoke my pity. It does get my ire. When does she become responsible for her own decisions, or are we, the taxpayers, going to also raise this child she knew she couldn't afford? No wonder President Bush wants to cut so many "programs." All we are doing is perpetuating irresponsible actions by people who know the bleeding hearts of our government will pay their bills, buy their food and raise their kids.
-- Agnes J. Schaeffer, Palm Harbor

It's always someone else's fault

Re: Prenatal care cuts proposed, March 3.

Does a 38-year-old, pregnant, ex-drug user have any responsibility for her own actions? When will she learn? We have students who can't read or write; it is the schools' fault. We have people who don't know how to use voting machines; it is the machines' fault. We have people who are not qualified for jobs; it is society's fault.

Wake up America! In these liberal times there is no outrage attached to these outrageous actions.

We became a great country because of hard work, honor and decency. Are we going to let it all go?
-- Nita Kitchen, St. Petersburg

Private agencies are more costly

Your recent coverage regarding the report critical of the Department of Children and Families does not begin to tell the whole story. What the report touched on, and Kathleen Kearney failed to respond to, is the staggering cost of the privatization of the state's foster care, child abuse investigations and related programs.

This report, and a similar one done by the Senate budget subcommittee reveal that the cost for private agencies to do what DCF has been doing is costing the taxpayers significantly more money.

The Senate Budget Committee reports that the cost for county sheriff's departments currently doing child abuse investigations (Manatee, Broward, Pinellas, Pasco and Seminole counties) is costing 40 percent more than DCF doing them.

What the media have not reported is that the backlog of cases (abuse investigations not completed in the time allowed by law) is as high, if not higher, with the sheriff's departments. With all the extra money those Sheriff's Departments receive, their turnover of staff is also high. This is in spite of the fact that their abuse investigators get cars they may use for work and take home, uniforms and a dry cleaning allowance for these uniforms, which don't even require dry cleaning.

In those counties where the foster care and adoption programs have been turned over to private agencies, the costs and results are similar. Kearney pulled the contract on one of those programs after they were indicted for Medicaid fraud. Staff in those programs receive similar salaries as those in DCF, but get significantly fewer benefits. Their employees are salaried and receive no compensation for overtime work as their DCF counterparts do. This may account for the high turnover rate in those programs.

In their zeal to prove to the citizens that they are downsizing state government, Gov. Bush and the Republican Legislature are spending substantially more money and getting less in the way of results. Nonetheless, the question has not been asked or answered: If the privatization of the state's social service system is costing far more money and the results are no better and perhaps worse than the existing state run system, why are they continuing to do it?
-- Brad Braswell, Tampa

Florida's race problems aren't new

Re: Perry is a start, governor, by Elijah Gosier, Feb. 27.

To the best of my knowledge, racism did not start in Perry or any other place in Florida the day Jeb Bush became governor. Neither will it end the day he leaves office. I have read the Times for almost 30 years and don't recall columns such as those written recently by Gosier and Bill Maxwell appearing during Democratic administrations. If they did, perhaps you could reprint them to refresh my memory.

The latest from Gosier was not just sarcastic or vitriolic. It did not ooze or drip venom -- rather it spewed it.
-- Joanna Coburn, Clearwater

A kick to the teeth

Re: Perry is a start, governor, by Elijah Gosier.

Talk about sour grapes! Nothing but criticism, cynicism and sarcasm. Where is the gratitude for the action taken? This kind of rhetoric sounds like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton at their worst and definitely doesn't promote any kind of good will, sincere or not. We just had many years of "good ol' boy" Democrat leadership. Why weren't these problems solved then?

I can't imagine why any politicians would be encouraged to do anything for anybody if all they got was a kick in the teeth for their activities. Gosier needs to take a long look inward and see if an attitude change isn't in order.
-- Gerald Doty, St. Petersburg

Gov. Bush is trying to help

Re: Perry is a start, governor.

It seems Elijah Gosier is not too impressed that Gov. Jeb Bush "jumped" on the town of Perry. Please tell the readers, Mr. Gosier, how impressed you were with the previous Democrat governors, Lawton Chiles and Bob Graham. They didn't even "flinch" while this was going on. Or do you submit that this wasn't happening during their terms of office? Neither of these gentlemen did "spit" to correct the situation. At least Gov. Bush jumped!
-- W.E. Carter, Riverview

Racism not ending any time soon

Re: Perry is a start, governor.

Sometimes it is surprising to read in print the very thoughts that are going through your own mind. Elijah Gosier's honesty about the poor state of race relations in Florida will undoubtedly release a torrent of hate mail from some very narrow-minded bigots. You will, of course, print some of the more fitting letters so that we can see for ourselves the nonsense so many of these people rely on.

The more I read these letters of hate and illogic, the more I understand the dire need this state faces concerning minorities. Perhaps one day, discrimination will be very rare. Recent stories in the press tell me that day is very far off.
-- Paul Kuykendall, Belleair Bluffs

Respect our British, Canadian visitors

Re: Visitor finds INS less than welcoming, letter, Feb. 27.

This letter struck a chord concerning my own puzzlement over the treatment of Canadian (as well as British, home-owning "visitors" in Florida.

We are new snowbirds from South Dakota and are allowed to come in and go out at will. The same privilege should be granted to the good citizens of Canada and Britain who come to Florida, for heaven's sake. They raise the economy, enhance our lives and their standards of ecology, friendship and helpfulness show their general kind spirits. Let's do the same for them.
-- Penelope Rhinehart, St. Petersburg

Bureaucratic rigamarole

Re: Visitor finds INS less than welcoming, letter, Feb. 27.

While not wishing to dispute the letter-writer's suggestion that the Immigration and Naturalization Service could indeed be friendlier to overseas visitors on occasion, I would point out that British immigration officials do not automatically allow American visitors, or those of any other country, to stay in Great Britain indefinitely.

Contrary to the writer's assertion that I could stay in his country as long as I wished, the entry stamp to the U.K. in my passport clearly reads "Leave to enter for six months." I have never, on several trips to Great Britain, tried to extend my stay for longer than that, but I would be astonished to encounter no bureaucratic procedures were I to do so. I am sure that the British authorities would be polite and might not charge me $120, but they undoubtedly have the same sort of rigamarole to control visitors who wish to stay as we do.

The easiest way to avoid any difficulties would seem to be, in the case of either country, look at the calendar and plan ahead.
-- A.S. Macias, 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 e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

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