Letters to the editor:
letters@metropulse.com

Buzz's Calling

The "We Are a People" story (July 4), concerning the journey of Buzz Thomas to find his calling as an articulate, understanding facilitator, bringing together diverse groups concerned about government and its role in religion (and vice versa) was both enriching and enlightening. I was fortunate to have first met Buzz (we knew him as "Buzzy") as a sophomore transfer student whose first encounter with his new classmates was spring and summer football practices before the start of fall classes. He was a senior captain that went out of his way then to make a rookie feel like one of the guys. Even though his calling wasn't known to him then, he displayed the clarity and purity of purpose then as was revealed today in your article.

Even though, as you mentioned, he did briefly served as Chairman of the Maryville City School Board, it is a shame that more people like him aren't "called" to elected public office.

Earl Whaley, Jr.
Knoxville

Strohaus Hop

I love to read Jack Neely's stories, but the one about the Strohaus (Secret History, Aug. 1) has me wondering just how many times he really visited this "fun" place.

I was there quite a few times, and I don't remember the bunny hop. What anyone who visited there even one time would remember is the "chicken dance."

Come on—the place was famous for it, and he never even mentioned it in his story. 'Fess up Jack, did you even go there one time?

Joan Eschman
Knoxville

The Whole Yarn

Your "Global Threads" article (cover story, July 18) told only one side of the story: the reactionary anti-trade side. And it didn't make much sense.

The article said NAFTA "has wiped out 2.3 percent of American jobs," but from the signing of the NAFTA treaty until last year American unemployment was steadily dropping, and no one is blaming the recent increase in U.S. unemployment on NAFTA. Thank Enron, WorldCom, and the technology-internet decline for that. So I guess NAFTA was creating more jobs than it was wiping out?

You also wrote about "the destitution" of Mexican workers in American-owned factories, and quote Luvernel Clark as saying workers in the BREED plant there get $7 to $8 a day, plus lunch and transportation, which, she said, the workers were grateful for, but "came out of the worker's paychecks." Let's put a dollar for lunch and transportation back into their paychecks, and say they get $8.50 a day. For a 40-hour week, 50 weeks a year, that comes to $2,125 a year. In purchasing power that's equal to $3,612.50 in the U.S., which is still low. It's low for Mexico, given Mexico's per capita GDP, adjusted for purchasing power, of $8,490 a year. (The numbers are from The Economist Pocket World in Figures, 2002 edition.) You could understand people taking such poorly paying jobs if Mexico had a high unemployment rate, but throughout the 1990s it was 3 percent. Yes, we're losing low-paying jobs to Mexico—these jobs are unskilled and low-paying even by Mexican standards—but for every low-paying job we've lost to Mexico we've created more than one higher-paying job here. Mexico is a poor country, but it's growing less poor. It's real GDP growth rate was 2.7 percent a year in the '90s. During the same period ours was 3.3 percent. If NAFTA is hurting us, you can't tell it by the numbers. By the numbers, it looks like NAFTA is benefiting both countries.

The point is that with NAFTA and the WTO our living standard has been rising and so has Mexico's. They just started out at a lower level.

Sure, U.S. companies pay Mexicans less than they pay Americans. There's a reason for that. In 1990, the last year I have figures for, it took 10 Mexican workers to equal the productivity of a single American worker. So if you paid a Mexican a 10th of the American wage, you'd just break even. As Americans build modern factories in Mexico, and the wages and taxes those companies pay help provide better education and infrastructure for Mexicans, that differential will decrease.

And while these exported jobs have hurt textile workers, on the whole they've benefited America's poor, whose clothes cost a lot less than they would otherwise. Even with NAFTA, our import restrictions on African and Asian textile imports cost the average U.S. household $260 a year—about $550 million for Tennessee. We Tennesseans could pay our textile workers $10 an hour to stay home, and still send $275 million sorely needed dollars to Africa to buy the stuff our people would otherwise have made, and that the Africans are begging us to please allow them to sell us. As is, that $275 million goes down the drain. It costs us $2 to save every $1 in Tennessee textile wages.

I'm sorry for textile workers who have lost their jobs. My mother is one of them—she lost her job with Playtex to the Koreans—and one of my uncles spent his whole life working for the old ILGWU. But the truth is the U.S. is going to continue exporting low-paying jobs while creating better-paying, more skilled jobs here. Those new jobs will require better educated workers, and education (as well as other social services) is something Tennessee is no good at. That's the real problem. We're America's Mexico.

We love complaining about high-tax states. Connecticut is right up there at the top. On the other hand, wages in the southeast are only two-thirds of what they are in New England. We laugh at the people of Connecticut for their high taxes. Driving through Knoxville, they look out the windows of their brand-new BMWs and laugh at our 10-year-old Fords. Fifty years ago they exported their textile jobs to low-wage Tennessee and North Carolina.

What do you make of them apples?

Sheldon Cohen
Knoxville

No Public Money for Private Schools

I enjoyed reading the article regarding school vouchers (loco parentis, July 18)— it piqued my interest in this subject; however, my rudimentary research into the topic has led me to an entirely different opinion from that of the writer. The primary topic covered the Supreme Court's ruling that Cleveland's program of providing taxpayer funds to parents for use in private education so long as non-religious school options are available. Additionally, the author implies that school voucher critics such as Al Gore, Rudy Giuliani, and Bill Clinton are somehow hypocritical because they have sent their children to private schools. I would dismiss this implication and assert that the fact that these gentlemen, who can afford private education, have chosen not to support a program that would benefit them financially and instead support publicly funded education is admirable.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has upheld the Cleveland program, but just because it is legal does not make it the right choice for our community for at least three reasons. First, considering that in excess of 99 percent of voucher participants in Cleveland's program attend religious schools (Hanauer, January, 2002), the issue of church-state separation is rightfully a concern of many. Personally, I do not want my tax dollars being used to fund a mosque that teaches hatred of Americans or a Nation of Islam school that teaches hatred of Jews any more than I want Jerry Falwell teaching my children that women's rights advocates and gays are to blame for the 9/11 attacks last year. Obviously, these examples are meant to show extremes, but religious extremism is becoming much more evident today; so we can either have tax dollars funding all religions or we can put the government in charge of determining appropriate religions.

Second, a voucher program such as Cleveland's, if applied in Knoxville, would primarily benefit the wealthiest. Considering that the top 3 religiously affiliated schools have an average tuition and fee cost of $6,500, most Knoxvillians even by scrimping, saving and forgoing luxuries could not afford an additional $4,250 per year in education expense, given that our median household income is in the mid-$30K range. Of course, Knoxvillians could choose Webb but it costs approximately $13,000 per year.

Third, a program such as described would have a catastrophic effect upon the Knox County public school system. According to the most recent budget, the cost to operate the Knox County K-12 school system is the equivalent of $1,000 per adult, Knox County taxpayer (Total Budget divided by Census Data of Knoxvillians over the age of 18). This equates to an average couple contributing $2,000 to our public school system. Providing them with $2,250 for each of their two children ($4,500 total) would require an additional $2,500 in funds. Proponents might argue that this would be offset from a reduction in operating the public schools, but would it? This argument is completely illogical as a very large percentage of public school cost is not variable; it is fixed. In other words, if 10 percent of the student population of Gresham Middle School moves to Webb, does Gresham not pay its April utility bill? Does it stop maintaining 10 percent of it steps? Do buses stop picking up every 10th child? Of course not; the primary variable costs are teachers that would then follow the students from the public sector to the private sector. The public education system supplies services that private schools do not; these include special education classes, vocational training, transportation and more extensive medical services. Diverting money from this import infrastructure to support private businesses is wrong.

I have nothing against private schools, just their public funding. Public schools are an integral part of our society and can certainly be improved, but vouchers are not the answer.

Bill Pittman
Knoxville