Spinnaker [Distributed: Wednesday, January 17, 2007]

It's a little more than two weeks into 2007, and Jacksonville has already been home to six murders. This is a slower start than last year, but it's still not good enough. Last year saw 137 homicides in Jacksonville, and the city is easily on pace to such a number again. Keep in mind these numbers to do not include surrounding towns and counties.

A sudden dropoff in murders caused 2006's number to finish much lower than was projected. Hopefully 2007 will reach a dramatic drop off, too, and hopefully that dropoff will occur much earlier than last year's.

What is Jacksonville doing to ease the amount of bloodshed? Mayor John Peyton headed up last August's Day of Faith rally downtown in the Veteran's Memorial Arena. Thousands of residents turned out to pray for peace and share their outrage over the crisis. Extra patrols were spread over several of Jacksonville's most dangerous areas last year, but money to keep them there quickly ran out.

There is no free or easy way to stop the violence in this city. It will take much more than a couple of hours in an arena and a few extra patrols on the streets. That's a good start, but it just isn't enough. Jacksonville's homicide crisis cannot be taken lightly and should not be stuffed in the back corner like some inmate in an overcrowded city jail.

Several families of those who have been charged with homicide in Jacksonville blame the city's juvenile justice system. They say it needs to be stronger and is severely under-funded. One juvenile court judge went as far to say that Jacksonville is breeding terrorists. This is not the bright future that one of America's fastest growing cities would hope for.

Jacksonville residents and officials need to examine why this happening. Why is there so much anger in our city? How does it start? Everyone needs to weigh this problem heavily, but those in power need to take advantage of such influence and make this the issue to deal with. Put it ahead of road expansions and condo construction.

Homicides are not restricted. There is no one race or gender or demographic to blame. There is no single neighborhood to pick on. Murders are occurring from the Northside to the beaches. Even worse, many victims don't know their killers. Stray bullets killed several innocent people last year, including a little girl who was hit by a ricocheted bullet while sitting on her bed reading a book after school.

Until city officials put this at the forefront of their jobs, we can expect the homicide rate to continue to rise. The new year is still young enough for Jacksonville to start fresh.

Universal health care proposal innovative

Editorial

Conventional wisdom has said for several decades that if one wishes to see what the United States will look like in about two years, one need look no further than the California of today.

Years of leading the country in social and, often, political change have bestowed upon California a reputation for progressive thinking. Crucial issues like spring fashion, pop-punk music and environmental reform have been shaped across the nation by endeavors first undertaken in the Golden State.

So when a proposal for totally redefining the way health care is considered was proposed by the state's future-sent-robot-busting Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, it should come as no surprise that the ears of the collective American public perked up and listened. And in this case - compared to the case of, say, Los Angeles native Beck's music - it may be worth some serious consideration.

In a nutshell, the notion is a pretty basic and basically altruistic one: everyone ought to have health care. Yep, everyone.

Nobody can really argue that the health care system in the United States doesn't need attention. There are nearly 47 million uninsured Americans today, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. Premiums have increased on average 81 percent since 2000. And an aging generation of baby boomers is on the verge of drying up what limited contingencies the government could afford to institute to support the health of the American public.

But where is the money coming from? Schwarzenegger is calling for a series of new taxes on individuals, employers and health care providers to fund the plan. This has drawn heavy fire so far, naturally, from those groups who stand to be required to make the most substantial contributions. Others are applauding the plan as an example of the kind of communal welfare-driven policy the utopias of literature are built upon.

Political analysts are already calling it a very risky move. Many have expressed a sentiment that the changes called for in Schwarzenegger's plan are far too intrusive and expensive to justify attempting something on such a grand scale with no guarantee of success.

But desperate times call for desperate measures. In an age where life-as-we-know-it-ending crises are perceived around every corner, Schwarzenegger ought to be commended for his bold, candid assessment of the problem and for proposing a real solution, unconventional though it may be. While it remains to be seen whether the plan will offer a realistic answer or even be implemented to an extent where it will have an opportunity to prove itself, this kind of decision that reaches across party lines to strive for an answer may exactly what this ailing crisis-ridden country needs.

Let's hope that the newly-multipartisaned power structure on Capitol Hill can behave more often like this in the future. If they can pull it off, it will surely be an interesting two years.

Miss America pageant becoming meat market display

Staff Opinion

There she goes - Miss America. Only this time, she's almost entirely naked. The switch from Speedo bathing suits to Venus bikinis is what Miss America CEO Art McMaster claims is necessary to boost ratings for the competition.

No one wants to watch Miss America anymore, and it's a catastrophe for producers. It's stale meat. ABC won't even air it anymore. Since reaching more than 30 million viewers in the 1980s, the competition has tripped on its high heels and fallen to 3.1 million in January 2006.

So McMaster has decided to tip off the New Year by dumping Speedo and bringing sexy back with Venus, a Jacksonville-based swimwear business. Instead of sporty Speedos with earthy hues, the contestants will sport itty-bitty, teeny-weenie bikinis most of us would only be caught in our backyards wearing for fear of exposing areas that, well, haven't gotten the chance to tan yet.

But the good ol' Country Music Television channel is ready to gallop their way into the scene and take over the ever-so-prestigious competition. This means we'll get to enjoy it over and over again - as many times as the cable company wants to play it. That's just great. My 9-year-old sister will have the opportunity to watch all of America's role models as they saunter across the stage in what they call the "health and fitness" portion of the contest.

That's something worth questioning in itself. Let's start with fitness. I'm convinced the ladies must have exercised to get those six packs and chiseled thighs, but it's hard for me to believe they're getting their breads, meats, fats and the rest of the food groups supported by the 2,000-calorie recommended daily intake. The idea of wearing Speedo bathing suits, a common brand worn by swimmers in the Olympics, was the closest they came to anything related to being healthy and fit.

The fact the competition is referring to this segment as something healthy and requiring the ladies to wear sexier attire is all-the-more reason for eating disorder clinics to stay in business. It's why Sandra Bullock couldn't eat the donut she was craving in "Miss Congeniality" and why little Abigail Breslin in "Little Miss Sunshine" pushed away her ice cream in hopes to be skinny and pretty like the other 9-year-olds in the competition.

I admit that many of the women in the pageant are probably not suffering from any kind of eating disorder, but there's no way they don't think about what they can't eat several times a day. I admit that I watched the Miss America pageant as a child and I admit that it has more merit than other televised pageants, as it's one of the only ones to offer a talent portion. And the women who win the crown do go on to law school and medical school and give motivational speeches to children. And it does offer substantial scholarship money - something I personally would think twice about passing up.

But the idea that this pageant is one that contains women with talent, poise and intelligence is the very reason why it should not be tainted with risquŽ swimsuits and stilettos. America obviously still cares to watch good talent - otherwise shows like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars wouldn't have become so popular. And quiz shows like Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune have survived longer than pageant contestants' grandparents have been alive.

America's just tired of watching young women compete to be the most beautiful, stylish and graceful. It's boring. We'd rather watch them eat roaches and walk on nails. Miss America has jumped the shark, and the water is cold. At the risk of sounding clichŽ, the ladies need to gather their towels, wrap them around their bodies, take out loans, and meet their goals the way the rest of us do.

Where in the world is President Delaney?

Student Opinion

Where in the world is President Delaney?

Where is President John Delaney? Unlike Student Government, where students vote for who they want to represent them every semester, students don't get to vote for the president of our school. The president is appointed.

This brings me to a question. How many students know Delaney? Has anyone seen him on campus talking to students about their experiences at our school and what the university can do make their experiences more memorable?

I've talked to many students about Delaney, and it disappoints me to see that when I do ask people who he is, they answer unconfidently, "Oh, isn't he the president?" or "Who's he?" Whether we like to believe it or not, there is a major disconnect between the students and the administration, specifically the president. There's a lack of understanding, and it's as if nobody wants to point out that this is a problem.

Now I understand the president is busy working on new projects for the school and expanding our campus and programs. But I find it inexcusable when it comes to spending time with the students. We are the people who make this school. We pay to attend this prestigious university. We would be the people to go to for ideas when making this campus bigger and better.

I see he has time to take pictures with the who's who of UNF and Jacksonville and promote the new school license plates on his three GMC Envoys, but can't he even walk around campus for a few minutes or have lunch with students?

I'm not asking for the president to drop everything and focus on the students and their needs every single day. I'm asking he acknowledge our students and make them feel like they belong here. We're not a huge campus like some of the other Florida universities, so it shouldn't be that difficult.

Please, President Delaney, reach out and touch the UNF students. We'd like to know you're here.

New Congress' student loan plan marred with wrong answers

Within the next few days, as part of their "first 100 hours" legislative blitz, congressional Democrats have promised to "make college more accessible" by halving the 6.8 percent interest rate on subsidized student loans. While parents and students certainly understand the strains of college costs, this policy is unaffordable, unnecessary and even illogical.

Despite persistent claims of cuts, student financial aid spending since 2001 has surged by a staggering 400 percent - from $9.6 billion to $48 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget. This makes the Office of Federal Student Aid the fastest-growing agency in the entire federal government.

Much of this increase has come from an unanticipated surge in the number of college graduates consolidating their student loans (which will lead to large federal subsidies to banks). However, the student aid budget is projected to level off at approximately $25 billion - nearly triple the 2001 level.

Congress' focus on interest rates is curious because current rates are quite low by historical standards. This school year, the variable student loan interest rate - which was set to jump to over 7 percent - was replaced with a fixed 6.8 percent rate that is lower than in all but six of the last 42 years.

Furthermore, the basic idea that cutting student loan interest rates will "make college more accessible" makes no sense. College affordability depends on family income and financial aid availability, relative to tuition and fees. The interest rate doesn't matter until after graduation when repayment begins. For a low-income student facing a $4,000 federal borrowing cap and an $8,000 tuition bill, lowering the post-graduation interest rate from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent does nothing to help afford tuition today.

The more relevant variables are grant and loan limits relative to tuition and fees. True, the maximum Pell Grant of $4,050 is just $300 over the 2001 cap. However, the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act created SMART Grants of up to $4,000 annually for students majoring in math, science, engineering or a foreign language critical to U.S. security. This effectively doubles the Pell Grant for many students.

Today's students can also borrow more. That same Deficit Reduction Act increased subsidized student loan borrowing caps for freshman and sophomores from $2,625 and $3,500, respectively, to $3,500 and $4,500. Graduate student loan limits were increased from $10,000 to $12,000 annually.

Overall, the total amount available for grants and loans has more than doubled since 2001, from $66 billion to $136 billion - or, excluding consolidation loans, from $52 billion to $78 billion. During this period, the number of students receiving aid increased from 7.6 million to 10.1 million, and the number of annual loans and grants provided to those students leaped from 15.4 million to 24.7 million. Clearly, students are already provided with ever-increasing resources to pay their tuition and fees.

Yet these unending student aid increases haven't made college more affordable. The average college tuition, adjusted for inflation, has leaped 86 percent for public colleges and 52 percent for private colleges since the 1991-92 school year. Paradoxically, many economists now believe that student aid hikes actually contribute to tuition increases. Colleges, like businesses, charge as much as their customers are able to pay. So when student aid increases, colleges raise tuition accordingly to capture the additional aid. It becomes a vicious circle, with students caught in the middle.

So if reducing interest rates won't increase college accessibility, or make college more affordable, what will it do? Subsidize future college graduates repaying their student loans. Before we add "college graduates" to the list of groups needing government handouts, consider that today's typical college graduate enters the workforce with a student loan debt of $17,500. While this seems large, it represents a monthly payment of only $114 ($102 when counting the related tax deduction) after conversion into a consolidation loan. Halving the interest rate would shave just $36 off the monthly payment.

Given that a college degree raises the average individual's lifetime earnings by over $1 million, $114 per month is clearly an affordable payment on a very profitable educational investment. Perhaps it's not in society's best interest to tax society at large to further subsidize the 24 percent with college degrees and higher lifetime earnings.

America faces substantial budgetary challenges: Washington spent a peacetime-record $23,281 last year, and projections show worsening budget deficits every year. The War on Terror and new homeland security costs must be funded. The coming retirement of 77 million baby boomers will send Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid costs to levels that could require a doubling of all income taxes. In this context, responsible lawmakers should step back and examine whether a new subsidy for college graduates is really a top priority.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services -- PERMALINK -- TOP OF PAGE

Print Edition

DISCOURSE

Murder rate threatens repeat in 2007

Editorial

Universal health care proposal innovative

Editorial

Miss America pageant becoming meat market display

Staff Opinion

Where in the world is President Delaney?

Student Opinion

New Congress' student loan plan marred with wrong answers

Spinnaker's Best

Spinnaker's Worst

Spinnaker's Fix

Print Edition