Middle schools need
their resource officers
I am writing to oppose the decision of Rowan-Salisbury Schools to cut middle-school resource officers beginning with the 2009-10 school year.
China Grove Middle School’s officer, Jeff Alley, has been a valuable asset to our school. I feel that he is instrumental in keeping order and maintaining discipline on our school campus. His daily presence and high visibility have been a deterrent to any severe infractions at out school. He handles himself in a very professional manner with visitors, students, parents and staff. He remains calm, even in volatile situations, and has diffused some potentially dangerous incidents.
It is my opinion that middle-school students are often at a higher risk for making bad decisions than high-school students, and peer pressure at this age is at an all-time high. I think daily positive influence and guidance from strong, adult role models is absolutely key for this challenging age group, particularly since they spend a large portion of their lives in a school environment. Ultimately, our children are the future, and one bad decision at a precarious age can change the course of their entire lives.
I do not know why or how the decision was made to cut middle-school SRO positions or which parties were involved in this decision. However, I do feel that it needs to be strongly reconsidered. Decisions regarding how funds are “best” spent on a year-to-year basis need more detailed explanation.
Perhaps more input is also needed from students, parents, school-based staff and communities before such decisions are finalized, for these are the people directly impacted when valuable personnel are lost.
ó Donna L. Moss
China Grove
Many pyramid schemes
The story of Bernard Madoff’s trial has been all over the news the last couple of weeks. He took money from investors and handed some of it out to others while keeping much of it for himself. He has now pleaded guilty to running a Ponzi scheme and is headed to prison.
I am surprised he was not hired by the U.S. Treasury Department. Our entire financial system is based on similar concepts. The Social Security taken out of my check goes to pay those who are now receiving benefits. There is no long-term fund. Several years ago, the comptroller general of the United States said this can’t continue without repercussions.
The fractional reserve banking system takes one dollar in deposits and loans out 10. If they loan one of those dollars to another bank, they can loan out another 10 dollars. This is known as a pyramid scheme. Do you know what happens to people at the bottom of the pyramid?
Fund managers of 401(k) plans have so much money pouring in every month that they must find some investment to put it in. This has overvalued the stocks of many companies and turned their price-to-earnings ratio upside down.
Governments at all levels spend more than they take in. How long can this go on? If my family used these financial methods, we would not be living in a home without a mortgage. We would be in the homeless shelter.
ó Tommy Shepherd
Rockwell
Rewarding the foxes
Regarding the Monday story about AIG bonuses:
Of the 39,000 AIG employees, it would appear that about 670 will get a million of our dollars. And, executives will divvy up $165 million at our expense.
I did a little number crunching of my own and came up with this scenario. Let’s say Treasury boss Timothy Geithner got in his limo and drove to N.C. and stopped off at the employment office in Salisbury. Instead of the $165 million being transferred to AIG, he pulled up a list of those now unemployed in our county for that money to be distributed to. Randomly, he and his staff chose 5,000 people from that list. Each job had a yearly salary of $33,000. No suspense here: it comes up to exactly $165 million.
Think about that: 5,000 of our fellow citizens could go off the unemployment line; pay taxes back into the system; buy clothing and housing for their children; catch up on a mortgage and get back the dignity of once again contributing.
Instead, people who consider themselves above it all will benefit, and they will hide every penny where no tax will ever be levied on it. To that, I heard one correspondent on one of the “Meet the Press” type shows state, “Well, they have to pay them to keep them on. After all, they got us into this mess, so we need their talent to get us out.”
Really? When the fox raided my grandfather’s chicken coop, he got his shotgun and made sure the fox never did that again. He didn’t get more chickens and say, “Here, fox, hope you’re not too full for your next meal.”
Working people are way past outrage, and unless there’s real “change,” as I recall being promised during a recent campaign, the manifestation may be far more crime, foreclosures, deterioration of our infrastructure and total chaos.
A.J. Moore
Salisbury
Compatible goals
The struggling economy has changed America’s priorities, yet many other issues still demand our attention. That’s why it’s important to recognize that promoting economic recovery and addressing climate change are not mutually exclusive goals.
North Carolina’s elected officials on Capitol Hill need to do more to promote a proposal for a carbon-based tax that would return 90 percent of its revenues in tax relief to the people and businesses using the energy. The carbon tax would encourage less consumption of carbon-intensive fuels, but will not be a detriment to the overall economy.
A carbon tax is much more practical than its highest profile alternative ó a cap and trade system. Emissions trading would encourage manipulation of the system not unlike the tricks played on Wall Street that got us into this economic mess. And applying such an exotic approach to emissions will be difficult to implement and very costly to monitor the thousands of companies trading emissions credits.
In contrast, a carbon tax is a simple plan that relies on the existing U.S. tax infrastructure and puts money back into the pockets of working Americans. We need our lawmakers to champion this common-sense solution to the urgent issue of climate change.
ó Shakira Humble
Salisbury
A matter of conscience
At a recent Bible study at my church, it was very obvious my pastor was burdened. He explained that the Obama administration planned to reverse the Provider Refusal Rule prepared by the Bush White House in August 2008 and enacted on Jan. 20, 2009. It expanded a 30-year law establishing a “conscience clause” for health care professionals who don’t want to perform abortions. My pastor’s wife is a nurse who has laid claim to this “conscience clause.”
In addition to all the “change” promised by our new administration, would it now assume the role of our conscience? Those of you who consider yourselves “pro choice,” do you not defend the right to exercise moral judgment? Why should health-care professionals not be granted that same right to choose whether they participate in a procedure that destroys life? If health-care workers are forced out of their jobs because of their ethical stances, access to quality health care, in my opinion, will be diminished.
God reminds us through his prophet Isaiah, “If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.” In these difficult times, families are threatened with loss of jobs and homes. Do we allow our morals and the values we hold sacred to follow that same decline? I stand committed with my pastor and fellow believers to pray for our leaders. The challenge they face is often overwhelming. In their way of thinking, bailouts and stimulus packages will help heal the financial malady of our nation. I choose to believe the word of almighty God to King Solomon, “If my people, which are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
ó Norma Shuping
Salisbury