Letters to the Editor: Aug. 27, 2019

Treasure Coast Newspapers
View Comments

We must learn to live in harmony with nature

Years back, I had the privilege of listening to a septuagenarian coworker constantly spinning stories of Old Florida. While the topics varied, his recitations always started the same way: “When my granddaddy first came to Florida, all he had to do to catch a fish was tie a button on a string and toss it in the water.”

Indeed, around the start of the last century, fishing in Florida was legendary.

More recently, an article by Ryan Smith in Smithsonian magazine caught my attention. At first European contact, the Calusa Indians populated the Gulf region of North America. This crescent was so lush that these hunter-gathers lived in permanent settlements without cultivating crops. They created great art and lived complex lives. They believed they were spiritually connected to the life and world around them.

Contrast this with Pánfilo de Narváez and his band of Spanish explorers/marauders, who were marooned in this Eden. Unable to recognize the bounty that surrounded them, they slaughtered their horses and resorted to cannibalism to survive.

Eventually, Europeans exterminated most of the native peoples and their beliefs.

Like those conquistadores, many modern inhabitants of Florida believe they live on a spiritual plane above the world around them. Their quest is to subjugate the natural world. Descendants of Europeans reshaped Florida to suit their dreams and, in doing so, transformed Eden into a HAZMAT site. Lake Okeechobee, once known worldwide for its bass fishing, is now renowned for green slime.

Our present lifestyle is toxic to our planet. Scientists tell us if we do not radically change our ways, much of Florida will be underwater by the end of this century. Humans lived in harmony with nature in Florida for 10,000 years. We need to admit our follies and reinvent ourselves.

Ric Stange, Fort Pierce

Federal spending plans must be sustainable in the long run

Enough of the daydreams from the Democrat presidential debates — free college, Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, full social services for illegal immigrants. To pay for new government-supplied services in the short term, we must: A) cut existing spending; or B) raise new revenue. Since the government seldom cuts spending, that means new revenue.

Where does it come from? Higher taxes or borrowing the money (i.e., increasing the national debt). To justify higher taxes or increased borrowing over the long term, one must show a revenue stream capable of supporting the increased taxes and eventually repaying the debt.

Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sanders’ ideas for new revenue: raise corporate income taxes and raise income taxes on people with high incomes. Prior to 2017, corporations were leaving the United States in droves, seeking lower tax rates elsewhere. We cut corporate tax rates in 2017 to encourage corporations to stay here, and it worked.

As for individuals, in 2018, the top 20 percent of those filing tax returns will pay 87 percent of all federal income taxes. Enough!

The bottom line: We want companies to make more money so they will expand and hire more people. We want companies and people making a lot of money to generate: 1) tax revenue for the government; and(2) the capital necessary for increased economic growth. With economic growth we can pay for government services and pay off our national debt eventually.

Why risk our economic future on programs that give everything away? We all know that people appreciate something more when they earn it themselves.

Tom Miller, Vero Beach

Limit the harm weapons can do

So, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”

OK, I get it. 

Here’s my counter-argument, starting with a ridiculous statement and working my way back to sanity.

Everyone in America should be allowed to have an atomic bomb. After all, atomic bombs don’t kill people; people detonating them kill people. Sounds crazy considering that of 300 million bomb-wielding Americans, at least a thousand or so will be malevolent/angry/crazy enough to detonate one.

If you say the problem is solved with better mental health care, and you should keep the bombs in circulation, you must agree that you can’t find/cure all possible detonators.

Further, if you said, “If you took away citizens’ right to bear bombs, then only the criminals would have them,” you’d make a valid point, but still wouldn’t address the mayhem the aforementioned crazies would cause. 

Working my way down from the ridiculous to the present: Should 300 million people have high-capacity assault weapons? No. What does my ridiculous idea have in common with the assault-weapons defense? It’s the ability to kill many people at once. Any mechanism that would allow someone to murder many people quickly should be banned and removed from circulation.

An AR-15 weapon.

I’m not arguing against six-to-10 shot firearms used for hunting or self-defense. In fact, the Second Amendment was fashioned at the time of flintlock muskets, where the worst damage a crazy person could do is kill maybe 10 people. Ten dead is not good, but it is better than 20, 100 or more. Here the mayhem of 1,000 crazies is sad, but limited. 

In short, I vote that we remove assault weapons from our society because malevolent/angry/crazy people will always exist and we should limit the damage they can inflict.

Peter Utz, Fort Pierce

‘Woodstock’ cartoon was insult to a whole generation

The Woodstock cartoon published Aug. 15 was an insult to my generation. We don’t all need walkers, keep our teeth in a glass or are constipated. We are the generation of people who got things done and continue to be of service to our communities.

Nora Klein, Port St. Lucie

View Comments