Letters to the editor: Lobbying for who?

Letter to the Editor

Lobbying for whom?

How have we gotten to a place where Tallahassee lobbying on behalf of our own locally elected officials does not advocate the interests of the citizens represented?

The Florida Association of Counties, representing county governments statewide, is opposing legislation allowing citizens to vote on a constitutional amendment ("Huge tax-cut proposal clears House panel," Feb. 2). The legislation changes nothing unless "we the people" overwhelmingly approve it at the ballot box in November.

Monetary impact, the reason provided, is only a half-truth. The legislation affects the value of property assessments, not the amount of tax collected. Local governments will continue to individually control the millage rate to ensure that services important to each individual community are adequately funded.

FAC lobbyists should work to find constructive solutions to legitimate issues with bills. For or against the legislation, we the people should have a right to decide, and that decision should not be eliminated altogether by taxpayer-funded FAC lobbyists we did not elect and who, while purporting to represent our county, may not actually represent the views of our county.

Sara Cucchi

Odessa

'Girl Scouts of the USA'

Regarding "The need to take a stance" (Letter of the Day, Feb. 3): Wake up! Maggie Beard of Dover wants the Girl Scouts to take a stand on birth control and abortion. She wants to impose her religious and political views on everyone else.

Do you take your kids to any stores that sell condoms or birth control pills? Do you shield their eyes as they walk past them hanging on the sales rack? If you want your kids to be in a group that opposes these things, look to your church. The organization is the "Girl Scouts of the USA," not the "Religious Bigots of America."

Be warned. Children of intolerant people often rebel and do the exact thing you don't want them to do.

Duke Marquis

Plant City

A moral issue

Regarding "Be wary of private prison scheme" (Our Views, Feb. 3): As in a past editorial by you, the moral aspect of privatization is not mentioned. Isn't it in society's best interest to have the least amount of its population spending the least amount of time in prison? This is contrary to a business, whose sole purpose is to make the most profit at the least expense. So how does a private company increase its profits? Perhaps by lobbying for more laws requiring prison, and increasing the prison time for existing laws.

I can imagine the occupancy rate for, let's say, maximum security being the topic of discussion at a future board meeting. It might go something like this: "The occupancy rate for high security is only 80 percent; what can we do to increase the occupancy rate? Any ideas, like it might pay for us to pay someone to commit a crime so we can increase our profit?"

Privatization makes sense in a lot of cases but not this one — if for no other reason than moral.

A. Frank Veeninga

Riverview

'Pesky' amendment

In response to "Boundaries crossed" (Your Views, Feb. 4): The crossing of the boundaries between church and state was not done by Bishop Robert Lynch but rather by the Obama administration running amok. This mandate is a direct attack on the religious freedom of most denominations and on the Catholic Church in particular.

What's next? Will the feds require Muslims and Jews to eat pork?

Was the bishop or any other church prelate supposed to remain silent when one of the church's tenets was being assailed by an administration that appears to consider the First Amendment a pesky little clause it can basically ignore?

Either people are ignorant of the ramifications of this action by the Obama administration or they just don't care.

To condemn Lynch for speaking out is outrageous.

Irene Hartman

Tampa

Casinos would provide jobs

As a lifelong Tampa native, I don't go to any of the Seminole Indian casinos in Florida to gamble. I also have never set foot in an Internet cafe for a game of chance.

And the more I think of it, I reluctantly cringe when I spend a few bucks on the Lotto if it gets in the mega-million range. It's not that I am opposed to gambling, nor am I out of work or too cheap to give lady luck a chance. It's more that I have enough maturity at age 60 to know when the odds are heavily stacked against my winning the "Super Jackpot."

But after reading "Casino bill likely doomed" (Metro, Feb. 4) — and after following this gaming issue for some time — I am rather incensed and disappointed over the intense lobbying and political infighting by a House panel that postponed a vote to grant casino licenses to develop three billion-dollar casinos in South Florida.

This issue, in all reality, should be based on pure and simple economics: We need jobs in Florida now.

The obvious opponents to these new casinos — Disney, the Seminoles and certain self-serving politicians — have displayed little concern for the existing state of our citizens' welfare and their individual livelihoods.

The House sponsor pulled the bill, but it goes without saying that gambling as a whole, along with this recent issue, is not going away any time soon.

Let Resorts World Miami, the developers, spend their billions in our state to create thousands of full-time jobs and, in addition, funnel millions of tax dollars into our economy.

It's an idea whose time has come.

Mike Merino

Tampa