Letters to the Editor - 6/15/2009

Help revive cities

Editor: The members of the state House of Representatives have a wonderful opportunity the week of June 15 to make a real difference in our older communities.

One of the best ways to renew our towns and cities is to invest and rehabilitate existing buildings. But Pennsylvania does not provide incentives for property owners to do it.

Most rehabilitation efforts in the state rely on federal historic tax credits, which have been available since 1985. Since the federal program began, Pennsylvanians have undertaken nearly 2,000 rehabilitation projects, investing almost $3 billion In rehabilitation, with well over half coming from the private sector.

Reviving and restoring our older buildings is very popular here; Pennsylvania ranks in the top five states in the use of federal rehabilitation tax credits, even without any state investment.

Which brings me to the wonderful opportunity our legislators have - to vote for House Bill 42, the Historic Preservation Incentive Program. This bill creates state grants and tax credits, expanding on the federal program. This new state program would create jobs, renew our cities and towns and build our economy.

ED BOITO

PennFuture

Campaign Director

Pennsylvania Works

Unappetizing bias

Editor: The new documentary film "Food Inc." is a crafty hit job on farmers, ranchers, and other food producers ("New film offers troubling view of US food industry," June 10). But it's difficult to see how drumming up fear and anger about the so-called "typical" American diet is a good way to improve our food system.

From its "horror movie-style" soundtrack to the constant claims that consumers are being deceived, skeptical viewers will immediately recognize the film's bias. Hopefully, they will also recognize its endless string of cherry-picked anecdotes and unsubstantiated health claims. The film's takeaway message about expensive organic foods carrying a significant health benefit is just one such fable.

"Food Inc." reportedly took six years to make. If its goal was to make Americans healthier and wiser, that should have been more than enough time to come up with something more constructive than a 135-minute takedown of everyone who works to feed us affordably.

DAVID MARTOSKO

Director of Research,

Center for Consumer Freedom

Washington, D.C.

Fit for expansion

Editor: I want to thank The Times-Tribune for the May 31 article about the program for physical fitness assessment and instruction to breast cancer patients and survivors. I appreciate the opportunity to get information about the program out to the community. I have gotten so much positive and enthusiastic feedback.

Should this program spark an interest in others, I would welcome the opportunity to explore grant opportunities or growth options. Additionally, I would like to reiterate my interest in this program being a part of community service projects, senior graduation projects, Eagle Scout culmination projects, etc. Anyone interested can contact me through Northeast Radiation Oncology, 504-7200.

I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Harmar Brereton and the staff at NROC, Penny Cunningham and Candy's Place in Forty Fort, to the NEPA affiliate of Susan B. Komen for the Cure for making this program possible, and to the wonderful and inspirational cancer patients and survivors who I have the honor to work with.

ABBY PECK

Waverly

Slash spending

Editor: Many economists are encouraging the federal government to spend more to stimulate the economy. They say that cutting federal spending is one of the worst things to do during bad economic times.

Apparently these economists are ignoring history as they hold to such views. Those who subscribe to this school of thought predicted economic doom would come to the U.S. because of large cuts in defense spending at the end of the second World War. Yet just two years after the end of the war in 1947 the economy was in very good shape even though defense spending had been cut to a post-war low of 4.3 percent of the GNP, as explained by Robert Higgs in his book, "Depression, War, and Cold War."

These economists are ignoring how the United States was able to come out of the long forgotten depression of 1921. In 1921 the unemployment rate in the U.S. stood at about 12 percent, when President Warren Harding led an economic recovery plan which made big cuts in federal spending to go along with a broad-based tax cut plan. The result of this was that in only two years; by 1923, unemployment was reduced to about 3 percent. Burton Folson Jr., in his book, "The Myth of the Robber Barons," tells how this particular economic plan started an economic turnaround which by the mid-1920s resulted in an excellent economy. Mr. Folsom will be a guest speaker at the annual dinner of the Lackawanna Historical Society on Aug. 26.

These economists who encourage running up large deficits to improve the economy and claim that cutting spending is bad are embracing the discredited Keynesian theory. Cutting federal spending will be good for the economy as long as it is combined with large tax cuts for people of every income bracket. Doing this will put money in the hands of citizens and industry rather than government agencies. Every dollar tied up in a government agency is one dollar less in the economy. Cutting federal spending now would be one of the best things for the economy.

WILLIAM SPEARE

Scranton

Help Dad save

Editor: Fathers are often known for their good advice, whether it's how to catch a ball, ace a job interview, grill the perfect burger or get the best deal on a new car.

But if your father is struggling with the high cost of prescription drugs, maybe it's time for you to give him a few words of advice. This Father's Day, you may be able to help your dad save an average of $3,900 a year on his prescription drug costs. Here's how.

If your father, or any father figure you know, is covered by Medicare and has limited income and resources, he may qualify for extra help - available through Social Security - to pay part of his monthly premiums, annual deductibles and prescription co-payments. The extra help is worth an average of $3,900 per year.

To figure out whether your father is eligible, Social Security needs to know his income and the value of his savings, investments and real estate (other than the home he lives in). To qualify for the extra help, he must be receiving Medicare and also have:

- Income limited to $16,245 for an individual or $21,855 for a married couple living together. Even if his annual income is higher, he still may be able to get some help with monthly premiums, annual deductibles and prescription co-payments.

- Resources limited to $12,510 for an individual or $25,010 for a married couple living together. Resources include such things as bank accounts, stocks and bonds.  We do not count his house or car as resources.

Social Security has an easy-to-use online application that you can help complete. You can find it at www.socialsecurity.gov/prescriptionhelp. To apply by phone or have an application mailed to you, call Social Security at 1-800-772-1213 (TTY 1-800-325-0778). Or go to the nearest Social Security office. 

To learn more about the Medicare prescription drug plans and special enrollment periods, visit www.medicare.gov or call 1-800-633-4227; TTY 1-877-486-2048).

So this Father's Day, fit in a bit of good advice for Dad - advice he can put to use right away. Tell him about the extra help with his prescription drug costs. In fact, you can help him apply online. After all, in times like these, every dollar counts.

JOSEPH E. MIECZKOWSKI

Social Security Area Director

Harrisburg