Across the board

It's that time of year again. Flowers are in bloom, vegetable gardens are growing and the legislature is in session, divvying up piles of money among the various state agencies.

Another annual event is also in full swing -- the shafting of some state employees. Mind you, nothing is set in stone yet; we've only heard proposals from the governor's mansion and the Senate, but it's very apparent which group of state workers is the favorite (teachers/university staff/community college staff) and which group isn't (everybody else who gets a paycheck from Raleigh).

Once again it is clear that our elected officials (with a few exceptions) have no regard for the work done by thousands of people in dozens of agencies every day that keeps this state running.

The House of Representatives has yet to speak, although an early recommendation was for 7 percent raises across the board. Now there's a novel idea: give the same amount to everyone! Show that you value everyone's contribution, not just the chosen few.

Hopefully the legislature will adopt that mind-set. Right now the Honorables are creating a caste system of the haves and have-nots.

Michael Thompson

Burgaw

Uplifting pay

Wages are a bedrock moral issue. Do we view workers as just another cost of business, or as human beings with dignity?

The May 15 rally in front of the Legislative Building featured Treasurer Richard Moore, former Sen. John Edwards and Rev. Dr. William Barber of the NAACP (among others), all insisting that raising the minimum wage is fundamentally a moral concern. While we appreciate the media coverage of this event, we want to reinforce the important moral component of the push for fair wages.

The religious voice is strong in each of the states considering raising their minimum wage. In Arkansas, Rev. Steve Copley, a United Methodist minister, chair of the coalition Give Arkansas a Raise Now and organizer for the Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign, was the key leader in convincing the legislature to raise Arkansas' minimum wage by $1.

Let Justice Roll, the North Carolinians for Fair Wages Coalition and the N.C. Council of Churches all agree on this basic moral statement: A job should lift you out of poverty, not keep you in it.

Jason R. Jenkins

Raleigh

(The writer is a program associate with the N.C. Council of Churches and North Carolina organizer of the Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign.)

A plus for vision

Kudos to Barry Saunders for his May 23 column about the vision care bill that's getting so much attention in the legislature.

For now, I'll not quibble with the column's shortcomings, such as the misguided implication that the bill's genesis resulted from quid pro quo politics. Instead, I want to credit Saunders for saying what others have refused to say -- that we can do better by North Carolina's children.

The notion that it's acceptable for a few children to slip through the vision screening system we now have in place is preposterous. Since when is it OK to sacrifice the well-being of a few simply because it's inconvenient -- or politically unpopular -- to help them?

Our society is making great strides toward solving the mysteries of medical afflictions that have baffled scientists for decades. Fortunately, amblyopia (commonly known as lazy eye) is no mystery at all. We can fix it. We can help preserve the vision of many North Carolinians. Isn't it time we put politics aside and get focused on that?

Dr. Max Raynor

President-Elect

N.C. State Optometric Society

Benson

Seeing past politics

Thanks to Barry Saunders (May 23 column, "A vision needn't be lost") for stating what many people know to be true but are afraid to say. The legislative bill requiring children's eye exams is good for the kids, but it was pushed through the legislative process inappropriately.

The fact is, eye screenings are a poor excuse for providing kids with a critical component of their overall health management.

The critics of House Speaker Jim Black, including school administrators and ophthalmologists, have locked on to their position due to politics, concerns about increased paperwork and self-serving professional motivations -- not from a position of what is in the best interest of children.

Routine physicals typically are "well patient" office visits. We do them to ensure that our child is healthy and we occasionally catch something that needs to be addressed. Such is the case with a comprehensive eye exam. You wouldn't entrust your child's health to be evaluated solely by a screener, so why would you take this risk with his or her eyes?

It would be great if the citizens of North Carolina would look past politics and see the merits of what was once called The Governor's Vision Care Program.

Robert Brodney

President

Eye Care Associates

Raleigh

No relief

I kept staring at two headlines from the May 24 paper. One story was about the state's wealthiest residents getting a tax cut in the Senate budget released Tuesday. The other was the heartbreaking story of a mother acquitted in the death of her son. He died from heat exposure in a car while she worked a double shift as nursing assistant in a nursing home.

We have to take a hard look at our priorities as a society. We have to understand how interrelated our lives are and embrace our individual responsibilities to each other and to the common good. I am ashamed of all of us in this richest county in the world.

Do we really need to reduce the tax rate for the North Carolina citizens in the highest tax bracket from a mere 8.25 percent to 8 percent? How many working mothers would this help find safe and affordable child-care? The article says there are 37,000 children on the state's waiting list for child-care subsidies offered to poor families. These are the children of the working poor who make minimum wage and have to work two jobs to try to make ends meet.

Are these family values we can be proud of? I for one, am ashamed.

Carol Teal

Raleigh

Public financing too

Regarding the May 18 news story "House is its own cop in ethics bill":

I could not believe it when I read that state House members approved strict ethics rules on the executive branch but not for themselves, by voting to substantially increase [compared with limits on the executive branch] the amounts of gifts to report. Although all but three members voted for this bill, I hope that the House will change its mind and accept for itself the same rules it wants for the executive, and also will vote for the independent ethics commission Gov. Mike Easley wants to see.

I also hope that the House and Senate will approve the bill for the pilot project for public financing of elections, which will enable more of our elected officials to serve the people full time while in Raleigh instead of having to spend precious time on fundraisers to ask for big money donations to finance their campaigns. I hope that the test proves to be such a success that other House and Senate members want to follow public financing rules.

Rep. Joe Hackney has worked many years to improve ethics, lobbying and campaign finance reform. Now is the right time to follow his lead.

Barbara Nettesheim

Chapel Hill

Gifts? Not really

What state Rep. Drew Saunders ["Even the baby Jesus accepted gifts, and I don't think it corrupted him"] doesn't understand is that those were gifts to Jesus. Nothing expected in return.

What Saunders refers to as gifts to politicians are not gifts but payment for undeserved services in return.

Jerome Feltz

Wake Forest

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.