Breaking Tampa Bay, Florida and national news and weather from Tampa Bay Online and The Tampa Tribune | TBO.com
Monday, Apr 21, 2014
Letters To The Editor

Letters to the editor: Destructive act

Published:

Destructive act

Regarding “Act swiftly on flood insurance fix” (Our Views, Oct. 30): Congress and The Tampa Tribune are missing the point. The cat is already out of the bag. As long as the Biggert-Waters Act is on the books, potential homebuyers know the government is going to substantially increase the cost of flood insurance in the future. Would you buy a home in a flood zone with this uncertainty? Of course not. We don’t need another poorly thought out quick fix.

This destructive act has devalued millions of American homes to the tune of tens of billions or perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars (far more damage than any flood). What’s being proposed does not address this problem. The only possible “fix” is to repeal the entire act. Even that may not be enough.

Ray MacGrogan

Tampa

Behavior questioned

Where is the religious outrage? USF professor Tim Weil compared a priest holding a crucifix to a toilet. He did this during a presentation for Behavior Analysis participants. Someone from the audience responded, “They’re both full of ...”

Wow. Some behavior. This is what Weil is teaching our kids? He gets paid for this baloney. He was issued a letter of counseling that “does not constitute discipline” from the dean, who also gets paid.

USF should be ashamed.

Jim Krauss

Tampa

Obamacare prediction

Regardless of whether it’s called Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, it was destined to fail, and the plan was, from the beginning, to have it fail. Couple that with the ridiculous communication problems and it makes me more certain my suspicions might be correct. It seems some of the people in Washington want to nationalize health care, which the people do not want at present. The longer the fiasco of Obamacare continues, the worse the problems will magnify. The public will get so fed up with it that the government will then step in as a savior with a nationalized health care system, and the people will be willing to accept it. Then the government will apologetically tell the people that with everyone having, in effect, been placed on Medicaid, it will be necessary to raise taxes.

Ed Raciborski

Tampa

Reaps but doesn’t sow

So President Obama is looking for more young people to sign up for Obamacare in order to generate the revenue required to provide coverage for the older generation. Sound familiar? It should because it is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff green with envy. But then, isn’t all insurance set up in a similar manner? It is an industry that sows not but it certainly does reap.

William A. Cox

Tampa

Teflon or bystander?

The question for future historians will be whether President Obama will be the “Teflon president” or the “bystander president.” The Teflon president because, like water on a duck’s back, nothing sticks. Numerous scandals have racked his administration. Some agencies have had more than one scandal with few questions about them having been answered. None have really touched the president’s reputation.

As for the “bystander president,” that would be because he doesn’t seem to have any idea of what is going on in his administration. According to his spokespersons, the president knew nothing about these scandals. Really? The majority of Americans elected the president to run the country, and that concerns me. If the president doesn’t know what is going on in the various departments and agencies, is the country being run by faceless, nameless, unelected bureaucrats?

President Truman had a notice on his desk: “The Buck Stops Here.” President Obama should have a picture on his desk of Sgt. Schultz with a caption of, “I know nothing!”

Kenneth R. Lowe Sr.

Sun City Center

Ball dropped

Most airports in major cities around the world have uniformed, armed police in stationary posts and roaming throughout the terminals and parking lots. In any airport large crowds gather in areas that do not require going through security screening — for example, the meet-and-greet areas. In 2003 the Department of Homeland Security considered a federal airport police. These police were to be armed with automatic weapons and have a high profile. They were to be specially trained in airport security, looking for and questioning suspicious people and properly handling suspicious bag situations and emergency situations.

The idea never was implemented because some bureaucrats thought that such strong police presence would be too intimidating and unnerving. They dropped the ball on that call.

John Swift

Ruskin

Comments