Opinion: Measure furthers competition in state purchasing

I was disappointed to read your May 13 editorial's careless allegation that an amendment to Senate Bill 1738 would "undercut competitive bidding." In fact, the opposite is true. If the Times had taken the time to contact my office and ask to have the language explained, it would have been clear that it merely codifies into law what has long been standard practice and in fact furthers the state's ability to competitively procure needed goods and services.

The Department of Management Services has for years provided by rule for invitations to negotiate, and state agencies have procured goods by this means well before my tenure. This amendment statutorily clarifies the existing use of invitations to negotiate, in keeping with the Legislature's desire for specific statutory authorization. There's no "blank check" here.

You also misconstrued the "request for a quote" language, which again merely articulates a process already utilized by state agencies and which increases -- not limits -- purchasing competition. It anticipates the circumstance where multiple vendors are qualified by reason of being on a state term contract. An agency could then request a quote from multiple vendors, negotiating for the best price under the state term contract cap.

It was regrettable that Rep. Loranne Ausley sounded a false alarm against this amendment, but doubly so that the Times heeded it. Please know that in Florida, only the businesses delivering the best products at the best prices need apply for state business.
-- Jeb Bush, governor, Tallahassee

Jeffords' move will benefit nation

On May 24, U.S. Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont announced that he was leaving the Republican Party and becoming an independent. This means the U.S. Senate will be controlled by the Democrats and create a better balance of power in Washington.

Sen. Jeffords made a proper and historic decision that will make America a better nation. Every U.S. citizen will benefit from this momentous decision of a great American who put his country first, before partisan politics.
-- William A. Crutchfield, New Port Richey

A step in the right direction

Sen. James Jeffords' jump is a step in the right direction and it is welcomed. The compassionate and conservative George W. Bush, along with the national Republican Party, has shown little compassion and has made a big "right" turn on most issues that are way out of step with "We, the people."

I take the senator from Vermont at his word -- that the divide was too great between him and what the grand old Republican Party has become. Bush and the ultra-conservative Republicans did not get a mandate to destroy our environment in the name of an energy crisis or a tax break for the elite, which will not in any way help the slowing economy.

If they don't get the message, then others will follow Sen. Jeffords, and they will be welcomed.
-- Reggie Hall, Ozona

Jeffords planned ahead

Sen. James Jeffords defection was not decided within the last couple of weeks based upon his sensitivities, as he stated. He knew before he ran last fall, as a Republican, that he would be changing affiliations and become an independent, make no mistake about it.

In my opinion, any mature adult, especially someone of Jeffords' age, education and experience, would have taken his political problems up with the administration and congressional leaders before making a major move like this. He possessed a powerful chip in the game by threatening to leave and change the balance of power, and he could have used it to get whatever he wanted. Aides in the White House said no one knew of Jeffords' move until Tuesday of this week. His decision obviously was already made quite a while ago.

No, Jeffords ran as a Republican for several reasons: 1) To help guarantee his re-election; as an independent it would be unsure. 2) As an independent he would not have gotten any campaign money; as a Republican he got as much as he needed and probably more. 3) Jeffords has a personal career agenda that he knew would not have a chance within the Republican Party. So Jeffords waited for a few months after his re-election so it would look like he just couldn't take it any more and and that this wasn't planned previous to the election.
-- Bill Saksefski, St. Petersburg

Look beyond party limitations

Sen. James Jeffords has been characterized as a traitor for his courageous action in refusing to go along with edicts he saw as irresponsible and not in the best interests of the country.

After noting that some had called him a traitor, I reread the Constitution in its entirety and found nothing warranting such an accusation. I also found nothing that indicated the existence of parties -- Republican, Democrat or otherwise. Members of Congress were chosen by the people to think for themselves and not to become the lackeys of a party.

When I vote, I vote for the candidate and not for a selected clan whose total programs may not represent my beliefs. Though I am a registered Republican, this usually results in a split ticket with the hope that the elected candidates will work together to produce legislation that is beneficial to all viewpoints, and not just to some quite arbitrary party platform dictated by the few who have the most to gain!
-- Richard Brookfield Sr., Largo

Party switch is understandable

Whereas I do not necessarily agree with a public elected official changing parties, I don't find fault with Sen. Jeffords. I don't support the idea of a candidate running as one who represents a particular party and then changes, leaving all of the voters who supported him in the lurch metaphorically speaking. I just don't think it is fair to the people who voted for him.

But on the other hand I can't blame him, as I did the very same thing and switched from the Republican Party to be an independent once the Supreme Court selected George W. Bush as the new president. It is very difficult for man of character, morality and ideals to go along when he doesn't agree with what the political party is proposing. Going along just in the sense of being a party person is admitting to the world you don't have a mind of your own. You might as well be a trained seal under the big top.
-- Nelson M. Powell, Tampa

Lending looks predatory

Re: Household is a responsible lender, letter, May 12.

Household Finance CEO Gary Gilmer's objections to the Times' article (Florida newest turf in lending hostilities, May 9) on an ACORN protest of Household's predatory mortgage lending is long on bombast and short on substance. In questioning the article's profile of a Household borrower, Gilmer sinks to the same level of deception regularly used by Household to push homeowners into abusive mortgages.

The borrower profiled was a St. Louis homeowner named Margaret Dickens who had two mortgages and other debts in August 1997 when Household refinanced those debts into first and second mortgages.

Gilmer claims the refinance reduced Dickens' interest charges on her first mortgage by $40,000. But this claim simply doesn't hold up. Before she refinanced, Dickens owed $37,978 with 12 years left on her first mortgage at 7.5 percent interest, which would have meant total payments of around $58,000. If you isolate that $37,978 at the 12.5 percent interest on the Household first mortgage and add a pro-rated portion of the loan's origination fee, you end up with significantly higher monthly payments over the loan's 15 years, leading to total payments of $90,363. Of course, Gilmer's claim also ignores the outrageous 21.9 percent interest rate on Dickens' second mortgage.

There is just no way to get around the fact that overall Household made Dickens' financial situation worse: She ended up with more debt staked against her house and with higher total payments on her debts each month. It's also important to note that:

Household financed origination fees of almost $6,000 into Dickens loans and will charge her future annual fees of $50. With interest, the fees will cost about $13,600.

Dickens' loan contained $5,700 in single premium credit life insurance policies through an affiliate of Household for her and her husband that she didn't want. The policies were set to cost her $12,645, including interest, if she hadn't realized that she had a right to cancel them and cut her losses. Last year HUD and Treasury recommended that Congress prohibit such policies because of their excessive cost.

Unlike her previous loan, Dickens' first mortgage with Household contains a prepayment penalty of around $4,000 if she refinances or sells her home within five years.

Before refinancing, Dickens owed $59,794 on her home, which is valued at $66,000. Afterward, she owed $92,640 on it. Since her loan-to-value ratio jumped from 91 percent to 140 percent, it's impossible for her to refinance to more reasonable rates.

What makes all this much worse is that Dickens' case is not an isolated incident. Gilmer's income of $2.6-million last year (plus rights to stock worth $6.9-million) was made on the backs of homeowners like Margaret Dickens from around the country.

Gilmer and Household's other senior executives keep denying that they have done anything wrong. More and more people are finding that harder and harder to believe. That's why more people are joining ACORN to demand that Household change its predatory lending practices.
-- Maude Hurd, national president, ACORN

Political correctness nets a fish

Re: Big Fish get a giant name, May 24.

So the American Fisheries Society has decided to bow to the overwhelmingly idiotic wave of political correctness that is tearing down our nation. It has decided for all of us that the name jewfish is offensive.

Does this mean we will be changing the name of the black grouper (for offending the black community) or the red fish (for offending American Indians). While we're at it, let's not forget the whiting, lady fish and spanish mackerel. And what about shrimp (couldn't that offend the vertically challenged)? And the name Goliath -- wasn't there a people in the Bible that he represented? Who speaks for them?

This supposedly scientific community has decided to bend to stupid political pressures, rather than study the background and history of the fish. Levitical law (otherwise known as Jewish law) found the fish to be clean (having scales and fins), thus the foundation of the name. Wake up, America! Political correctness should not overthrow common sense for the sake of not offending people.
-- Ken Ellington, Pinellas Park

A meal comes to mind

Re: Big Fish get a giant name, May 24.

As a young Jewish man reading the article about the impressive jewfish, or newly named goliath grouper due to the politically correct, I could think of only one thing. Grilled or blackened? Yum!
-- Jeffrey Gordon, Wesley Chapel

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