|
Poor education
To the editor: I just want to say “what the ****” to all of those who voted no on the Oregon school levy. Do you realize what just happened? It’s upsetting and difficult to understand how high school busing will be stopped. How could this even be considered?
Kids need a safe way to and from school. Not everyone has family close by to help out. Parents can’t jeopardize their jobs because they have to leave work, fight traffic, pick kids up, take them home and go back to work. Some may not be able to leave work at all. We will be losing time, money, gas and possibly our jobs. Thanks for the added stress. It’s almost like having to find dependable daycare all over again.
Then there is the closing of Wynn school. Will all the staff at Wynn be out of a job now? It’s sad to think that great teachers will be unemployed thanks to a no vote. Will the elementaries be overcrowded?
This is poor education. A lot of parents chose to live in Oregon because of the great schools. The schools are now falling apart and so is the community.
I always felt it is best to vote yes on school levies. The schools are the foundation for the community. People may start to move out of Oregon. Since there will be fewer teachers in the district, maybe administration should be next on the chopping block.
Lisa Tolliver
Oregon
School `bus stops’
To the editor: Instead of no high school transportation to Clay High School, what about a “bus stop” at each of the grade schools?
The bus (or buses depending on the number of students assigned to the stop) would leave at the same time each morning and drop them back off at the bus stop at the same time each afternoon. The high school student would then have the opportunity to walk to and from his/her local grade school. This would be a huge savings for the school and also provide a safe route to and from school for the students.
I am sure that I am not the only person who does not want to see the high school students (with the majority of these kids being 14 and 15 years old) walking to and from school at least three miles one way in the dark, rain or snow with no sidewalks.
Daniele Walter
Oregon
Not sustainable
To the editor: Many people do not understand where the money for unemployment comes from, so they think it’s wonderful that our legislators wish to grant more of it.
Unemployment compensation does not come from Obama, or Republicans or Democrats. Unemployment compensation is a federal and state insurance system that is funded by employers’ payroll taxes. Many state unemployment compensation funds are in the red, so they borrow from the U.S. Treasury. Someone has to pay back the Treasury, so taxes need to be raised. Unfortunately our legislators keep hitting business in order to appease the unemployed.
There are people who have received 99 weeks of unemployment in this country, and now they might get 56 more weeks (13 months). This is not sustainable. It is not reasonable. It is harmful to work ethic and harmful to our businesses who will end up shouldering this added burden.
Legislators say they want to create jobs, and then they say they believe extending unemployment is a good idea. This is another indication that our legislators, as well as some members of the general public are clueless about running businesses and about economics.
If I were a business owner, I would change my business model so that I had as few people as possible because our current system continues to penalize employers for providing employment.
Mary Gregory
Elmore
Term limits needed
To the editor: I cannot understand our government. It seems like the two parties just fight between themselves instead of making laws to help the whole United States.
I always thought our government was doing what was best for the U.S. and not just political parties. Maybe there should not be a two-party system. Just like the President, senators and representatives should be elected for no more than two terms. That way they would have to go back to work for a living and get their own benefits and retirement plans.
If so, would they still vote for no increase in Social Security cost of living? It is hard to believe all the money they lend to other countries and forget about the poor and what we need here. By the way, do we ever get any of the monies back we loan to other countries?
Jerry Bronkowski
Oregon
A turkey of a bill
To the editor: John Szozda’s fluff piece on health care got one thing right – prices will continue to skyrocket until nobody can afford health insurance.
What do you expect when conservatives write a bill and yes, President Obama is the most conservative Democratic president we have had in the last 100 years. Conservatives will protest that they did not vote for the bill. In the committee writing the bill, conservative Republicans kept saying they wouldn’t vote for it unless everybody was made to take it and it was run by the insurance companies.
Liberals wanted a single-payer system like the rest of the civilized world has paid for by people and business taxes. The rest of the world has cheaper care and better care. The U.S. ranks 37th in the world in quality of care. Naturally, Republicans and corporate news media were all against this and lied and distorted the truth on single-payer insurance.
Max Baucus, a conservative western Democrat, and the Republicans and insurance companies wrote this turkey of a bill to benefit the corporations.
When asked if the bill would pass, Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s guru, said yes, there were no liberals left in the Senate except Bernie Saunders. He was right. Liberals fought this bill and 80 percent were dead-set against it. But like Republicans, corporate Obama said corporate Democrats passed the bill. One of the big reasons for wanting single-payer was the ridiculous heights insurance companies had pushed rates up to.
Now the very means to control them was taken away by conservatives of both parties.
Albert Kapustar
Oregon
Fair competition
To the editor: In a television interview during the Division I football championship game, Ohio High School Athletic Commissioner David Roth stated that the association was considering adding a seventh division in football to promote fairness in competition.
If the association were truly concerned about fairness in competition, it would have established separate tournaments and playoffs for public and non-public schools years ago. Private and parochial schools can recruit large areas and cherry pick the best athletes for their schools. Public schools cannot, and the results are obvious. Only 8.5 percent of Ohio students are enrolled in parochial schools, but they have been winning state championships in both boys and girls sports in over 50 to 60 percent of the time for years. Recently, it has gotten even worse.
In just-completed fall championships in girls sports, six of seven state championships, or 86 percent, were won by parochial schools (one of two divisions in soccer, one of one in field hockey and four of four in volleyball). In boys sports, eight of nine state championships, or 89 percent, were won by parochial schools (five of six divisions in football and three of three in soccer).
Many other states provide fair sports competition by having separate tournaments for public and non-public athletes and have successfully done so for many years. The time has arrived for public school board members, athletic directors, coaches and local citizens and parents to let the OHSAA know that their athletes deserve the opportunity for fair and equal athletic competition. If the OHSAA continues to ignore its obligation to provide it, then the public schools should withdraw and form a new association of their own.
You may agree or disagree with this letter but either way, I would encourage you to contact the OHSAA at 614-267-2502 and give them your thoughts on this matter.
John Brenneman
Galloway, O.
 |
Opinions/Columns 
Subscribe to this comment's feed