Letters to the Editors

Use of budget surplus should be key election issue

© St. Petersburg Times, published July 24, 2000

The federal budget surplus keeps getting bigger each time it's re-estimated. This election is about a key turning point in the history of the United States. It is about who benefits from the surplus, and the answer to that question will shape the character of America for the next 50 years.

The key to understanding this election isn't about Al Gore or George W. Bush, but about the people who surround them. These people will determine where the surplus will go. There are basic tendencies in the two main parties, even though there has been a lot of complaining on both sides about them moving to the center. Democrats have demonstrated by their votes in Congress that they tend to benefit persons with middle and lower incomes with breaks and benefits from the surplus. Republicans have demonstrated they tend to help persons in the top 20 percent of income.

The question is, which is best for you, the voter? The answer might seem that it depends which income bracket you're in. As we decide to vote for all candidates at every level of government, we need to ask some basic questions. Will it be better to have a greater gap between the haves and have-nots in the United States? Are more exclusive gated communities a foundation for a vibrant democracy? In country after country when there is a growing gap between the rich and everyone else, it eventually leads to social unrest, faltering economies and the threat that those who have accumulated great power will use it in ways that undermine democracy to keep what they have and to get even more.

The gap between persons with high incomes and the rest of America has been growing dramatically in the last 20 years. Now, according to U.N. data, of all the industrialized countries only Russia has a larger income gap than the United States, and we can see what's happening there.

I think it may be best for all of us if there is more balance in the United States. If the federal surplus is used to reduce the income gap by raising the opportunities of lower and middle income Americans, it would go a long way to building an America that can sustain its prosperity well into the future. That will benefit all of us, no matter what our income bracket. It will also be a kinder, more just America, one that I want for my children and grandchildren.
-- Warren Clark, Tampa

Avoid budgetary pandering

Politicians have offered majestic estimates of the budget surplus over the next 10 years and then rushed to spend and commit it to various programs, often in a manner designed to maintain themselves in power. It is abject pandering. The size of surplus is a mere guess (educated?) as are estimates of the costs of future federal programs. Who can forget how inaccurate were the original cost estimates for Medicare and Medicaid? We don't want either of them repealed but would like to see them simply administered more efficiently and honestly. Why don't we take the lesson of the billions lost in Medicare fraud and military spending to heart?

I believe in our country all people with earned and unearned income (except the poorest) should pay some tax to acknowledge the manifold benefits received from government. That is mostly the case, but our disgraceful Internal Revenue Code has too many exceptions and should make thinking people absolutely cynical. Hype about surpluses becomes conviction, and we ignore their contingent character even if programs such as health, education and Social Security deserve some more funding.=

The surplus over 10 years is not a given any more than prudent government spending is. Budget decisions should be made based on the quality of data used to estimate surpluses and on the virtrues of the programs being considered. They should not be made because they can win votes, which is too often the case.

For example, the prescription drug program for all older Americans has appeal and merit, but the questions of program structure and long-term cost are political quicksilver. As a Republican favoring private property and regulated private enterprise, I don't think a prescription drug program should be privatized, especially in a health system so in flux. Yet if the government administers the drug program, there must be substantial safeguards against growth in the federal bureaucracy and against imposition of price controls on drug companies. Whatever the truth about drug prices, it is stupid to ignore the great strides in medicine they have achieved. Government-industry cooperation beats class actions and tort lawyers determining outcomes.

Our experience as a nation is that neither government nor business deserves complete trust and that some balance of their interests often works well.
-- James R. Gillespie, St. Petersburg

Morality and taxes

Re: Adjust inheritance tax, don't end it, letter, July 13.

The letter writer asks the wrong questions when he asks: "Is it moral and ethical to pass down great wealth from generation to generation? What entitlement do these heirs have to it?"

Rather, the questions should be: Is it moral to claim the wealth of other people just because they are wealthy? What entitlement do we have to others' wealth legally acquired?

The original questions arise from the mistaken notion that a group somehow develops moral authority that none of its individual members ever had. We all recognize that ordinary thievery is immoral when done by one person but can't seem to get it through our heads that the same act, even if agreed to by 51 percent of the voters, must also be immoral.

Beyond that, however, the fundamental plan is flawed. The "very rich" are not affected by such taxes; they hire the best counselors to shield their wealth from the tax man. It is those in the middle, adequately rich but not rich enough, who wind up paying the tab for every cause-du-jour of the well-meaning but clueless.
-- Frank Clarke, Oldsmar

AIDS gets special treatment

Re: The new worry about AIDS in America.

People should know this is the first epidemic in modem history where the lethal agent is kept a secret. Why doesn't the press speak out about it?

In cases of syphilis and other venereal diseases, it is mandatory that the patient be identified and all the sexual partners be followed up by an investigator. The purpose is to control the spread of the disease. Not so with AIDS; if the patient says no, the doctor is not allowed to request an investigation. So the patient and all the infected partners can continue to spread the disease. This is wrong.
-- Larry McGovern, D.V.M., Tampa

Movies aren't history lessons

Re: Making a hash of history, July 16.

In its editorial, the Times forgot to mention one glaring example of a film's account of history diverging from the real deal. Gladiator is about as historically accurate as an episode of The Flintstones.

And you know what? It doesn't matter. It's a rollicking good yarn and one heck of a ride. I don't go to the theater to see a history lesson. I go to be entertained or to see an exploration of the human condition, the primary purposes of drama. If, in addition, I learn a little something, well, that's just serendipity. Those who expect more, while they might know their history coming and going, are ignorant of the function of art.

Allow me to paraphrase one of your arguments: "William Shakespeare, who also bears blame for the atrociously inaccurate Macbeth (or Richard III, Julius Caesar, etc.), has shrugged and said the play is "sheer fantasy.' But it pretends to be based on reality and has an identifiable historical setting."

Sound silly? It is. If "Too many Americans think the Civil War was like Gone With the Wind," that is not the fault of Margaret Mitchell but of an educational system that relegates history to an also-ran subject. This is the true travesty, not when an author or filmmaker or any other artist extrapolates from history.

As you state, "History is not a science." But, then, a work of fiction is not history. Just keep that in mind, and we'll all have a good time at the movies.
-- Danny Guy Ball, Tampa

History suffers in books, too

Re: Making a hash of history.

This editorial's point -- that accuracy in "Hollywood history" often suffers from the liberties taken under the guise of artistic license -- needs to be extended a bit further.

The very textbooks used to teach generations of American citizens the history of our nation would suffer under the same scrutiny for accuracy, and this is -- in my mind -- a very dangerous thing. It is probably responsible for many social ills we suffer today.

I'd like to bring readers' attention two very fascinating, eye-opening and sometimes hair-raising books: Lies my Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong and Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong, both by James W. Loewen. Fair warning, though: In reading these books, you put your idealized, apple-pie notions at great risk. But if you would rather live with truth, then, by all means, read these books. I especially urge the parents of school-age children as well as the members of our school boards, who decide which textbooks are distributed to students, to read these books.

As a nation, most of us have not been well-served by the many misrepresentations, omissions and outright lies that were passed-off as "The American Pageant" in our history classes. On the other hand, Loewen makes a good case that there have been many who have been very well served, indeed, by the spin masters who control the perceptions of our national heritage.

The corruption of history obviously isn't restricted to American history, and neither should the skewing of "facts" be a concern solely to students of history. Institutional religion is another candidate for deeper examination for the same kinds of omissions and misrepresentations. But that's another letter.
-- Louis A. Claudio, Safety Harbor

Enigmatic details

Recent discussions in the press concerning the movie U-571 criticize the film for alleging that American submariners captured a German Enigma machine, thereby helping the Allies break the Nazi code and win the war. These press reviews, including your editorial, Making a hash of history, go on to state that the British Navy captured Enigma in 1941, before the United States entered the war.

Enigma was broken by the Poles during the 1930s. Six weeks before the German invasion of Poland in 1939, the Poles offered the Enigma machine to the British, and by the end of the following day the machine was in England. They established a special center at Bletchley Park and gave the operation the code name Ultra. British cryptanalysts kept up with the changes the Germans introduced into the system. Ultra intelligence was shared with the United States and was instrumental in the achievement of Allied victory. Ultra remained secret until 1974.
-- Bernard L. Tauber, Tampa

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.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.