LET­TERS TO THE ED­I­TOR

The Sun Herald (Sunday) - - News -

VET­ER­ANS LOSE – AGAIN

Phase one of the mas­sive fee in­crease at the Armed Forces Re­tire­ment Homes went into ef­fect Jan. 1. The men and women vet­eran res­i­dents of the homes — in Gulfport and D.C. — have been fight­ing since April to get the new fee struc­ture grand­fa­thered.

Facts and fig­ures show that:

The AFRH will lose more rev­enue from the 120-plus vet­er­ans fi­nan­cially forced out (with more leav­ing weekly), than will be made from the in­creases.

The new fee struc­ture will pre­vent res­i­dents from plan­ning their bud­gets as fees will rise and fall dras­ti­cally ev­ery year.

Any in­crease in out­side rev­enue will have no im­pact on res­i­dent fees.

The 60 per­cent of gross in­come cap for In­de­pen­dent Liv­ing res­i­dents is not prac­ti­cal.

The Con­gres­sional di­rected phase-in only de­lays the in­evitable. Congress’ man­date that no res­i­dent shall be re­quired to move due to in­abil­ity to pay the in­crease means noth­ing. AFRH’s po­si­tion is that ALL res­i­dents have the abil­ity to pay their as­sessed fee (by ex­clud­ing ex­ist­ing debts).

Con­gres­sional reps believe the fan­tasy fig­ures from the AFRH rather than in­ves­ti­gate or even look at the fig­ures from the homes’ res­i­dents. One rep­re­sen­ta­tive’s staff mem­ber asked: Why should they as­sist res­i­dents with pre-ex­ist­ing debts when there are resi- dents giving up their cars and other items in or­der to re­main at the home? A bet­ter ques­tion is: Why are our rep­re­sen­ta­tives al­low­ing vet­er­ans to be forced to give up their cars and other items to re­main at the home? – Robert Guen­ther

Gulfport

THE TRUTH ABOUT AFRH

I’m dis­ap­pointed that the Sun Her­ald did not factcheck all of its re­ported top sto­ries of 2018 be­fore print­ing them with pic­tures in a 5-col­umn, above the fold, front-page story. Your caption that “Armed Forces Re­tire­ment Home res­i­dents forced to move out af­ter rent in­crease” is in­cor­rect.

No res­i­dent has ever been asked to leave this home be­cause they could not af­ford to pay their rent. Our rent is based on a max­i­mum per­cent­age of our to­tal in­come for each level of care, not the amount of money we have left over af­ter we have paid for all our “wants.”

Those who have moved out of our Home (I am a res­i­dent) have done so by choice … their choice. This is a life-care fa­cil­ity and I thank God ev­ery day that I will never be asked to leave be­cause of in­abil­ity to pay the max­i­mum charge for any level of care I may re­quire. I will al­ways be able to af­ford to live here, be­cause I am will­ing to pay my fair share of a well­doc­u­mented abil­ity to pay fee sched­ule.

– Ken­neth C. Henry Armed Forces Re­tire­ment

Home, Gulfport

YES TO MED­I­CAL MAR­I­JUANA

Harold Daw­ley’s let­ter (Dec. 16: “Med­i­cal mar­i­juana and you”) hits the nail on the head. If we want bet­ter means to con­trol cer­tain med­i­cal dis­eases, we need to vote to ap­prove the use of this life-sav­ing drug. Some think that it is a gate­way drug. It is not. If we can ap­prove the sale of al­co­hol, we should ap­prove the use of this life­saver. Vote yes, if our gov­ern­ment gives us a chance to vote on its use. Let’s be a leader and not a fol­lower. – Nor­man R. Parker

Di­a­mond­head

HERE’S A BET­TER IDEA

Rep. Steven Palazzo’s plan to in­tro­duce leg­is­la­tion to sell “Bor­der

Bonds” is a waste of time and is doomed to fail pri­mar­ily be­cause bonds must be re­paid with in­ter­est to the in­vestor and Congress will not agree to this. A much bet­ter plan would be for Rep. Palazzo to use an ex­ist­ing “Crowd­sourc­ing” ap­pli­ca­tion that would al­low true wal­llov­ing pa­tri­ots and cor­po­ra­tions to give tax-free do­na­tions for this con­struc­tion.

Based upon the amount do­nated each par­tic­i­pant could re­ceive a pho­to­graph of his or her sec­tion of the wall. Do­nate more and and have your name or logo taste­fully en­graved on your sec­tion. Do­nate more and re­ceive a minia­ture replica of your sec­tion.

The bor­der econ­omy would ben­e­fit for gen­er­a­tions from par­tic­i­pants and their de­scen­dants tak­ing va­ca­tions to see their sec­tions, and hun­dreds of artists would be needed to cre­ate the repli­cas. The south side of each par­tic­i­pant’s sec­tion would be­long to the par­tic­i­pant and could be sold for ad­ver­tis­ing space — gen­er­at­ing a con­tin­u­ing rev­enue stream into per­pe­tu­ity. – Brit­ton Ca­gle

Biloxi

DO NOT CHANGE THE NAME OF MCCAIN LI­BRARY

I was stunned to read of the group that wants to change the name of the McCain Li­brary at The Uni­ver­sity of South­ern Mis­sis­sippi, to Ken­nard, cit­ing Clyde Ken­nard as the one who was de­nied ad­mit­tance be­cause of his race, un­der the pres­i­dency of Dr. Wil­liam McCain.

What this group fails to rec­og­nize is Dr. McCain was a scholar. Be­fore his ap­point­ment at USM, he was direc­tor of the Mis­sis­sippi Depart­ment of Archives and His­tory, and a five-star gen­eral. He con­trib­uted nu­mer­ous ar­ti­cles to jour­nals, and was very sup­port­ive of li­brary and over­all cam­pus im­prove­ments. Many new build­ings went up dur­ing his time at USM.

While Dr. McCain did have his faults, those have been chron­i­cled in The Jour­nal of Mis­sis­sippi His­tory. His ac­com­plish­ments out­weigh his weak­nesses.

When I was a stu­dent in the School of Li­brary Science, in 1976, our Cat­a­loging class met in the Cook Li­brary, across the court­yard from where the new li­brary was un­der con­struc­tion. We had to shout over the noise of the work, but were pa­tient, know­ing it would re­sult in what would be­come one of the ma­jor spe­cial col­lec­tions li­braries to be found.

Most uni­ver­sity build­ings I am aware of are named af­ter lead­ers.

Please do not change the name of the McCain Li­brary. The idea to do so is an­other ex­am­ple of how po­lit­i­cal cor­rect­ness has got­ten way out of con­trol. – Stan­ley Hast­ings

Gulfport

A GIFT FOR THE RECRE­ATIONAL FISH­ING COM­MU­NITY

Our United States Congress re­cently took a his­toric step by pass­ing the first-ever sport-fish­ing-fo­cused leg­is­la­tion in the na­tion’s his­tory.

The Mod­ern Fish Act will go a long way to­ward help­ing Mis­sis­sippi’s an­gling com­mu­nity, which for too long has been man­aged by fed­eral poli­cies de­signed with only the com­mer­cial fish­ing sec­tor in mind. The Mod­ern Fish Act will man­date im­por­tant mea­sures, in­clud­ing the use of new man­age­ment tools more ap­pro­pri­ate for recre­ational an­glers, and the com­mis­sion­ing of sev­eral stud­ies that will bet­ter in­form pol­i­cy­mak­ers on the best man­age­ment prac­tices for Amer­ica’s fed­eral fish­eries.

All of this is great news for salt­wa­ter an­glers, and it was made pos­si­ble by our very own Sen. Roger Wicker. Since in­tro­duc­ing the Mod­ern Fish Act last year, Sen. Wicker has worked tire­lessly to build bi­par­ti­san sup­port in both cham­bers of Congress — at a time when comity on Capi­tol Hill is par­tic­u­larly hard to find. His per­sis­tence paid off with unan­i­mous sup­port for the Mod­ern Fish Act in the Se­nate and an over­whelm­ingly bi­par­ti­san vote in the House.

Be­cause of Sen. Wicker’s ef­forts, sport­fish­ing is fi­nally be­ing rec­og­nized by the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, which opens the door for mod­ern man­age­ment prac­tices, en­hanced conservation ef­forts and is a shot in the arm for the state’s econ­omy. The recre­ational fish­ing com­mu­nity looks for­ward to a 21st cen­tury man­age­ment sys­tem, and we thank Sen. Wicker for his work on this im­por­tant is­sue.

– Tommy Elkins (chair­man, Coastal Conservation As­so­ci­a­tion Mis­sis­sippi)

Bay St. Louis

IN­STEAD OF A WALL, USE TECH­NOL­OGY

Even when walls were a state-of-the-art de­fense (along with cas­tles with moats) they were not very ef­fec­tive. The Great Wall of China did not keep the Mon­gols out, Hadrian’s Wall did not keep the Picts out. More re­cently, the Maginot Line did not keep the Ger­mans out.

In this age of satel­lites, radar and heat sen­sors, build­ing a wall is just silly. A few satel­lites in po­lar or­bit would keep the en­tire Mex­i­can bound­ary un­der con­stant sur­veil­lance. They could also, with GPS ac­cu­racy, di­rect bor­der pa­trol units to any in­trud­ers. – Bruce Em­er­ick

Car­riere

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.