SHARE:
Readers
In April, John Berry wrote an article entitled "You're (Not) Entitled" [Close-up], an opinion that prevails among those earning over $50,000 who wish to compromise their democratic responsibility to nourish this great American experiment that the world knows as a land of opportunity for all and a government that promotes equalitarianism, resulting in a citizenry (86%) that is overwhelmingly middle class. A social contract was drawn and endorsed 60 years ago (Social Security), a great society 35 years ago and Medicare, Medicaid put in place to assist the helpless and blameless, the young and old. Unfortunately, 15 years ago, Reagan (I voted for him) and his prot?g? Bush put the country into 4 1/2 trillion dollars of debt.
While the rich got richer in the '80s and greed was good, taxes for the middle class went up and their standard of living went down. You would think the wealthy "haves" would want to repay a few dollars of the debt and support the entitlements, while campaigning that corporate welfare come to a halt. (Please refer to CATO Institute, Washington, D.C., recommendations to require corporations to pay income, investment tax.) We could "return to thrift" by seeing the "peace dividend" Reagan spoke of and avoid spending billions on space programs to determine if organisms lived on Mars 1 billion years ago and on B-1 bombers (30 of them on order at $1.5 billion each). We could support job programs that help turn unemployed young welfare users into taxpayers ? rather than cutting entitlements to those who live long enough to draw them (only 1.6 out of five do) or to the one in five taxpayers who will go into nursing homes to die, perhaps needing Medicaid to pay the bills.
Those of us who are baby boomers are expected to be parents, hold down jobs, raise kids (cost $200,000 per kid these days), pay a mortgage, pay into our medical security account to cover all illnesses until we die, and fully fund our pension retirement for an average of 15 years of retirement. Oh, did I forget, pay for all nursing home care for two sets of parents, with no hope of inheritance as any serious illness wipes out all "average" Americans' assets. Do we really want the gap between "haves" and "have nots" to widen? We have only to look at societies in Latin America to see the collapsed economies and hyperinflation of such a society.
Peggy Smith
Palm Harbor
--
Florida's Children
John Berry's column "Florida's Forgotten Ones" [Close-up, August 1996] was very interesting and informative. The politicians give lip service to juvenile crime by advocating more "garbage cans" (prisons) for the bad apples. What really works are the "greenhouses" for growing good apples. Greenhouses can come in several varieties and can provide prevention and rehabilitation at a fraction of the cost of prisons.
The "Take Stock in Children" foundation created by Barnett Banks, Publix, et al., is an excellent example of the business community doing something in a positive manner. However, it is a long range program that can not possibly affect kids 7 to 12 years of age in economically depressed neighborhoods. If they could get involved in building a few greenhouses, then they could save the 7 to 12 year olds as well as the 13 to 18 year olds.
I have no faith in Tallahassee bureaucrats. The real answers lie with local volunteers composed of moms and dads willing to become coaches and managers of activities that not only include their own kids, but those that are less fortunate.
Most writers seem to do a pretty good job of reporting the story of juvenile crime and violence, but they should also get involved in the volunteer level of prevention and rehabilitation for a real hands-on experience.
Edward F. Selleck
Sarasota
--
Workers' Compensation
I read with great interest the section in your Tallahassee Report "Rethinking Workers' Comp" [September 1996]. Ann Clayton's comments about deregulating workers' compensation were right on target.
I was an insurance agent in Florida for 20 years and active in the reform movements of the early 1990s. In July 1995, a business opportunity brought me to Georgia. I found that Georgia was like Florida in the late '80s and early '90s, but it had just passed some reform legislation.
What a difference a year makes. The market is now flooded with standard insurance carriers. Several of the converted Florida self-insurance funds that are now insurance companies have aggressively moved into the Georgia market. We have a mix of self-insurance funds, captive mutual carriers, specialty workers' comp companies from around the U.S. and national multistate insurance companies.
In Georgia, workers' compensation is not totally deregulated, rates and discount plans have to be approved by the insurance commissioners office, but if I was an established agent or carrier in Florida, I too would be afraid of deregulation or, a better description, open pricing. The fallout for the less successful self-insurance funds and insurance agents could be devastating. Workers' comp is now one of the most profitable lines of insurance for the industry.
With price reductions of 10%, 20%, 30% or 40%, the commission income for many agents would drop dramatically. But the good agents would thrive. The winner in Florida, as in Georgia, would be the insurance buyer, and if this change was managed properly, it could attract new industry and growth.
Tim Gaffney, AAI
Gillman Insurance Group
Norcross, Ga.
--
Conserving Energy
I read with great interest the article "Power Struggle" in the July 1996 issue of Florida Trend. The article suggests new industry is wary of relocating to Florida and existing companies are moving to other states due to the exorbitant energy costs of doing business here.
Ms. Clough stated the existence of a "state-sanctioned monopoly" in which electric power is sold by five investor-owned utilities and a few municipal utility companies. These investor-owned utilities oppose competition of electricity, they say, on the grounds that large industrial users would get low rates, while small business would be charged more. Small businesses can't depend on utility companies to fight for them; if money is to be made from big business, that's where the loyalty of utility companies will be. While studies are being conducted by the Public Service Commission as to whether deregulation will lower rates for small businesses, the small business owners must "fend for themselves."
By correcting the power factor of motors and installing power reducers for fluorescent and high-intensity lighting, energy costs can be greatly reduced. If energy costs for small business owners fail to be controlled by the utility industry during deregulation, companies can lower their costs within the confines of their own buildings by reducing their power consumption through decreased kilowatt demand.
