Truckers inconvenience us

October 25, 2008

Dear Sir,

Could someone please explain why thousands of commuters and their employers should be inconvenienced because a few dozen truckers have a problem with twenty dumpsters? I hope the fines (if any) for the "various traffic offences" will fully reflect the damage done to the local economy. Surely Bermuda has had enough of workers' movements which impede the movement of workers.

CLIVE R. DAKIN

City of Hamilton

Ferguson had it right

Dear Sir,

I have just read Mr. Barritt's opinion in your paper October 15, 2008. I just want to say it's the gospel truth. Life is not getting any easier these days for seniors in Mr. Ferguson's homes he built especially for low income seniors. At Purvis, Elizabeth Hill, Heydon and Ferguson park. Mr. Ferguson said these places were being built for low income seniors to make their life a little easier in their later years. He had a plan. You put your name down at the Trust and wait till it comes up, mostly were widows. The rents have gone from $118 a month to $725. BHT says, it is maintenance, I rarely ask but some parts do get old.

How can old people live these days on their pensions even if you get $1,000 a month or less?

The electricity is sky high, food, doctors, unless you have a family to help you have to go to financial assistance and so many have illnesses that come with age, eyes, etc and they just sometimes let it go.

These days we do not have the qualified maintenance people we used to have with Mr. Ferguson. There was Mr. Trott, plumber, Mr. Madeiros, maintenance, etc and we never had to get them back again and again so there you are.

Mr. Ferguson used to only put rents up about $20 and we never had it put in the hands of Rent Commissioner ever.

There goes Mr. Ferguson's idea for seniors to have an easier life in their golden years. His plan was when you get to 60 years you put your name down and when it's your turn you get one. Not so these days.

So Mr. Barritt and Mrs. Jackson are the only ones who really try to help seniors. Thank you!

SENIOR

Devonshire

Doing the math

October 24, 2008

Dear Sir,

In today's Royal Gazette the Minister of Social Rehabilitation, Dale Butler, was reported as saying the Ministry had allocated $1.5 million towards the PLP election platform promise of free childcare for only (after backtracking on their original promise) "qualified" Bermudian families, making less than $70,000 gross income per annum.

He estimated this benefit, which has (miraculously, yet again) been capped at $800 per month (so strictly speaking it's technically not free as childcare costs can certainly end up being more than that, especially for infants) will benefit between 300 and 400 families.

He went on further to state (when questioned regarding the availability of funding given the long foreseen economic downturn, at least by most people not in government) if the money was still in the budget to which he responded "Government made a commitment in the Budget and those funds have not been touched. Those funds were left to ensure we had sufficient money to pay for those people who need it".

Ok, I think a little "back of the envelope math" and a reasonability check is warranted here. If the government committed to this project earlier in the year (which makes one wonder why they waited until the PLP delegates conference to finally announce commencement of the programme … oh, hold on a minute … 18 percent approval rating for the Premier … now I understand) and has admitted to budgeting for it since it was first announced (late in 2007) something doesn't add up.

Notwithstanding the curious timing, if Mr. Butler expects this programme to benefit upwards of 400 families and assuming each family has only one pre-schooler then 400 (families) x 800 (monthly allowance) x 12 (months) = $3.84 million which means the programme has already been short changed more than $2.3 million dollars … and they still haven't even started it yet. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or a pre-schooler) to figure out the PLP never had any intention of rolling this out anytime soon and did so only because it was politically expedient.

While we're on the subject of platform promises … can someone tell me how hard it is to simply not charge someone for riding on the bus or ferry? It's not like the childcare program where you need to sort out who is a qualified caregiver and how much of an allowance is needed for each child. You just decide come Monday morning to replace the fare information at the front of each public transportation vehicle with a sign that says "Free" and simply not charge anybody anymore. If the government can't do the little things right, just imagine how much trouble we're in when it comes to weathering the worldwide recession and how the people's +$1 billion budget is being allocated?

KEG

Pembroke

Keep tricking

October 24, 2008

Dear Sir,

In today's Royal Gazette letters, Joshua Richardson says that he used the wrong wording when he said 'keep on tricking, Dr. Brown' when he actually meant to say 'keep on trucking, Dr. Brown'.

My dear Mr. Richardson, that's what is commonly known as a Freudian slip.

GIGGLING

Hamilton Parish

Wrong priorities, Premier

October 24, 2006

Dear Sir,

I am a Bermudian student studying law in the United Kingdom. Through contact with other Bermudian students here in the UK, and through reading the electronic version of this newspaper daily, I became aware of the Premier's intention to host a UK College Dinner for students at the Dorchester Hotel in London.

Similarly, I read in the Wednesday, October 22, 2008, edition of The Royal Gazette that the Premier had made a financially prudent (apparently) decision to postpone a 'relationship-building' trip to Ponta Delgada, Azores. His reasons for doing so were to 'trim the fat' on Government spending and 'lead by example' in the face of the international economic downturn.

I will neither confirm nor deny that I will be attending the Premier's dinner in London, nor will I comment on whether I am a Bermudian of Portuguese heritage. However, I would like to express my disappointment with the PLP Government and particularly with the Premier for calling off the trip to the Azores.

The aspect of this that surprises me, and in truth concerns and angers me, is that the Premier has decided to host its student dinner at one of the most posh and expensive hotels in all of London. London, as one of the largest and most vibrant cities in the world, has a huge selection of quality hotels with fantastic food. It appears to me that the Premier has trouble prioritising, and has put appearances ahead, or in place of, the strengthening of international ties with a large provider of human capital to Bermuda.

As such, I cannot, in principle, agree with what the Premier is doing with the student dinner. Further, does the Premier really think that hosting the student dinner at the Dorchester is a way to 'trim the fat'? I am adding this to the growing list of contradictions made by the Premier and this Government.

This Government proclaims itself to be progressive. 'Progressive' is defined as favouring reform or new ideas. Would not the construction and reformation of political cooperation between the Azores and Bermuda fall into the category of progressive thinking?

If I were a Portuguese-Bermudian, which of course I am not confirming (or denying), I would be highly insulted by the Premier's actions. But more importantly, as a Bermudian, I am concerned about the Premier's lack of financial responsibility, especially considering his recent disappointing thoughts on the economy and his promise to 'trim the fat'. As the PLP begins its second decade in power, after a disappointing first, I hope that it actually learns to be progressive.

CONCERNED BERMUDIAN STUDENT

Devonshire