Perspective: Vouchers are about freedom of choice

In reading Robyn Blumner's column, I have to applaud her getting right to the core of the matter: The Republicans' real agenda is "undermining public schools and diverting money to private and parochial schools."

Actually, I can't speak for all those conspiring Republicans she refers to, but "privatization" is certainly the appeal of vouchers to me. I am not a member of the religious right, but I was raised in a public school where God was not a dirty word and teachers were in charge. In my opinion, our public school system has been ruined by the government's misguided nullification of morals and discipline, paving the way for a lost society to fill the resulting vacuum with chaos and violence. Further, I see this primarily as a political and philosophical issue, not a "funding" issue, and no amount of funding will cure it.

So, my question is this: If I do not wish to expose my child to this government "philosophy," and I'm not utilizing those services and instead send my child to a better learning environment, then why should I be compelled to also pay for those government services? It seems to me that the real issue is freedom of choice -- regardless of economic or social class. Perhaps if everyone is given this same choice, over time, society as a whole just might benefit in spite of itself.
-- J. Kern, Clearwater

Competition is key

Re: The truth about school vouchers, March 18, by Robyn Blumner.

In this free-market economy, we are all consumers of the product known as education. The government has mandated that each citizen be "entitled" to an education provided through government funding. Limiting the choice by which persons may obtain such products is akin to forcing consumers to patronize a government-sponsored monopoly. The political left is concerned with our freedom to choose computer software vis-a-vis the Microsoft anti-trust case. However, the left is opposed to the citizenry having those same freedoms with regard to our children's education. The arguments are simply not consistent.

Putting more dollars per student into public education is not the answer. If Washington, D.C., were a state, it would rank third in the country in the amount of money spent per student. Conversely, it would rank ahead of Mississippi only in academic achievement.

The 1976 recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics, Milton Friedman, notes that there is a sizable home-schooling industry today. He asks, "Is there any other case in which the home-made "product' is greatly superior to the professional product? What an indictment of the government school system."

A competitive educational industry has a great deal to offer the economy and the consumer. Voucher programs foster such an industry and should not be disqualified simply because some oppose a heterogeneous educational process.
-- Chris Karamitsos, Bayonet Point

Put quality care first

Staff writer Stephen Nohlgren gave voice to the "silent suffering" of Charlie McCorkle in his excellent two-part series on the McCorkle family's lawsuit against his nursing home (Profits & patients, March 18, 19). The series showed why the Legislature shouldn't give in to business interests who want to take away the right of elders and their families to sue nursing homes that abuse, neglect and sometimes even kill our loved ones.

The series also raises serious unanswered questions about the ability of Florida's government to assure quality care standards are met in the state's nursing homes, which care for 85,000 of this state's frailest citizens. Too often it seems bad nursing homes go on for years with limited attention from government departments like the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, which is charged with regulating and inspecting nursing homes. The result is cases like McCorkle's, stricken silent with Alzheimer's disease and neglected until he began to waste away and die.

There are many laws and regulations on the books that, if enforced properly, would go a long way toward improving bad nursing homes and reducing the number of lawsuits. The state has the ability -- indeed, the responsibility -- to fine nursing homes that violate quality care standards and temporarily take over management in those homes that consistently refuse to improve. Those options are not used enough, and even when fines are levied, they are not collected.

As legislators debate nursing-home reform, it's important that citizens send a firm message to Tallahassee: Put quality first by resisting attempts to unreasonably limit lawsuits against bad nursing homes, and put some backbone -- and extra resources, if needed -- into the state's nursing-home inspectors and regulators.
-- Lois A. Herron, state president, AARP, St. Petersburg

A needed focus

Re: Profits & patients, March 18.

Since both of my parents are in long-term care, I am sadly aware of the shortcomings of nursing homes. I cannot express how much I (and I'm sure others) appreciate that you have taken this issue to the front page where it belongs.

Everything this article mentions regarding the lack of proper care is painfully accurate: short staffing, poor record keeping, weight loss, bed sores, poor grooming, lack of monitoring, lax medical attention, nutritional deficiency, starvation, painful abuse. I could go on and on, Is this what passes for care in our civilized society?

Nursing home care, or what "passes" for care, is truly substandard. We must continue to force accountability. If that means that families must do so in the courtroom then so be it.

Forget the industry argument that they are being picked on by high-priced attorneys looking for an easy buck! There would be no litigation if conditions in homes didn't merit it.
-- Diane C. Dickinson, Tampa

Defending the indefensible

Re: What's pathetic is Egan's judgment, March 18.

"What's pathetic?" The answer is Bill Maxwell's column defending the photograph Yo Mama's Last Supper.

We are not archbishops, priests, ministers or preachers. We are, however, believing Christians of various denominations who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified and died an ignominious death for us. For Maxwell to defend a depiction of Jesus at the Last Supper in a lewd, insensitive and sacrilegious manner is truly pathetic. Maxwell's column is, in our opinion, a "pathetic" defense of the indefensible.

We are surprised -- no, we are stunned -- by the insensitivity of the Times editors not to realize that Maxwell's defense of Rene Cox's depiction of the Last Supper and the crucified Christ as a nude woman offends Christians of every denomination.

We do not defend Cardinal Edward Egan, nor the "pathetic" non-Christian actions of pedophiles of any stripe. We do, however, object to the promotion of so-called art that demeans a very basic tenet and foundation of Christianity.
-- John and Elinor Olszewski, Catholics, New Port Richey
Bob and Bessie Webb, Presbyterians, New Port Richey
Ed and Joan Benson, Lutherans, New Port Richey
Richard and Linda Schwann, Episcopalians, New Port Richey
Paul and Donna Hinkley, Methodists, New Port Richey

Segregation days

I am a Canadian who first came to St. Petersburg about 1946 or 1947 when I was a university student. I'd drive my mother and father (who was ill) down, spend a few days and then take the train home, reversing the process when my school year ended. I am now retired and spend six months here each year.

Your March 18 story, A telling history, took me back to those years and recalled to me one incident that still stands out in my mind.

While wandering downtown quite close to the location shown on your lead picture, I spotted a small bar announcing it sold Molson ale from Canada. At that age we found your beer much too weak, and so I spent many leisure hours there. But I always rushed to get back to Webb's famous drugstore to meet my parents and get a ride back to the beach.

One day I had far overstayed my visit. I jumped into a taxicab parked at the curb and said, "Hurry to Webb's." The driver, whose skin was black and hair was white, turned and said in a kindly tone, "Son, you know I can't haul white folk."

It is still one of the most poignant moments of my life. I remember his words now as clearly as if he uttered them yesterday.

Indeed, I well remember the total segregated aspects of Southern life but never would have suspected that a black person could not even provide such a basic service to a white person. I got out of the cab immediately so as not to compromise or embarrass him or even endanger his taxi license, but we did have a good talk while I stood by his door.

The occasion played a strong role in my views against intolerance of all kinds. This, too, is part of the history of St. Petersburg.
-- Clem Neiman, Largo

Back to Perspective

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page