Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Monday, March 6, 2000Public school safety
needs strengtheningWITH all the needs to be met at Hawaii's public schools, it's unfortunate that money has to be spent on security -- unfortunate but necessary. The latest incident of school violence, in which a 6-year-old boy shot and killed a 6-year-old girl at an elementary school in Michigan, underlines the need.The issue: The Department of Education will hire safety managers for 23 secondary schools on Oahu.
The nation has been repeatedly stunned in recent months by killings in schools. Hawaii educational officials recognize that similar incidents could easily happen here.
The Department of Education and the Honolulu Police Department have unveiled a three-year pilot program that would provide school safety managers at 23 secondary schools on Oahu. The managers will be recruited from applicants with backgrounds in law enforcement, many probably retired police officers.
The cost to each high school will be $8,000, to the intermediate and middle schools $5,000. Estimates of the total cost range from $350,000 to a little more than $1 million. If the program can save lives, it will easily justify its cost.
KMK Associates, a company owned by Keith Kaneshiro, the former city prosecutor and state Public Safety Department director, has won the contract to recruit candidates and train those chosen to become safety managers. The managers will be paid $2,200 to $2,400 a month as independent contractors.
Schools Superintendent Paul LeMahieu said, "A safe campus -- one that is free of violence, disruption and free even of the psychological threat of violence or disruption -- is absolutely essential to an effective learning environment."
This is certainly true, but absolute security is an unattainable goal. The safety managers cannot be expected to provide it. They should, however, be able to make significant contributions to better security.
Kaneshiro said the safety managers could help principals and administrators with such problems as truancy, gang violence and substance abuse. He added, "I see the need to have it in all schools."
ROOSEVELT High School Principal Dennis Hokama said, "It really frees the administrator from some of the kinds of things that they may not necessarily be fully trained to be the experts in." School administrators can't be expected to be experts in security.
This is a pilot program and may need revision as experience is gained. But it has the potential to make the public schools safer.
Ending earnings limit
for Social SecurityTHE limit on earnings for Social Security recipients was enacted in the Depression, when unemployment was at a historical peak, as a mean of encouraging people to leave the work force at 65 and open up jobs for younger people.
Now the limit seems about to be abolished. The House voted 422-0 last week to repeal the limit, which affects those from 65 to 69, and allow them to earn as much money as they can without losing retirement benefits. The Senate is expected to pass a similar measure and President Clinton, who formerly opposed the idea, now supports it.
Under current law, people 65 to 69 who earn more than $17,000 a year lose $1 in benefits for each additional $3 earned. However, the limit has been rising in recent years to offset inflation. It is scheduled to rise to $30,000 by 2002. There is no earnings limit after age 70. About 800,000 people would benefit from the change.
The current prosperity has helped to change opinions. With the economy booming and unemployment low, there is no need to discourage older people from working. Indeed, their services are in demand as businesses find it hard to fill job vacancies.
Repeal of the limit has become so popular that both House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., took to the floor to speak in its support. Both Democrats and Republicans claimed credit for the measure, with Hastert calling it "a time of salvation for our seniors."
Rep. Bill Archer, R-Texas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, asked, "Why in the world would we want to discourage any American, whether they're 17 or 67, from working?"
However, it seems strange to provide retirement benefits for people who are still working, especially when the Social Security system is under financial stress. The change is expected to cost the Social Security trust fund $22 billion over the next 10 years.
But the low unemployment rate and the strong demand for labor makes that objection seem academic. Besides, the loss to the trust fund would be offset by increased revenue from payroll taxes. And the federal budget surplus can be used to shore up the trust fund.
Opinions might change if the economy went into a tailspin. But with the parties vying for the votes of the elderly and the economy booming, the earnings limit looks like a goner.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
