Could LIV controversy have something to say about tournament income for pro golfers?

·3 min read

LIV vs. PGA

It had to happen. Both the LIV and PGA have been on a collision course, yet each has something positive to contribute to professional golf. While the PGA requires aspiring golfers to graduate from qualifying school, pay tournament entrance fees and survive the cut in hopes of earning money to sustain a living, not so with the LIV.

Moreover, aspiring PGA golfers have to pay their own way to and from these events, footing the bills for travel, lodging for themselves, caddies and often their family. If they don’t make the cut, it’s all for naught. Who knows how many talented golfers might’ve made the tour if they could have afforded those initial years.

In the world of sports, but for professional golfers and tennis players who have to win in order to make any money, professional baseball, football, basketball, hockey players and others are guaranteed millions of dollars a year in salary, whether they play, win or not.

Maybe it’s time the PGA considers a sliding scale annual income for its golfers to be competitive.

Al Emanuelli, HHI

Pull from districts

The teacher shortage in our nation has gone on far too long and it is hurting the quality of our children’s education and the eventual quality of our workforce.

I have heard of some schools requiring their principals and assistant principals to teach classes while trying to continue to perform their overburdened administrative duties. I have also heard about hiring college students and unqualified adults to step in. This is unacceptable.

I suggest school districts trim the size of their district office personnel by pulling former teachers on staff and putting them back into the classroom where they are desperately needed.

Now, if that sounds like a demotion, then we need to talk about this nation’s need to give classroom teachers the salary, respect and dignity they deserve.

We can have that discussion next, but, for now, use the qualified educators in district offices to fill the void and replace them with people outside of education.

Jeanette Payton, Blythewood

Abortion economy

Let’s remove the emotion from the abortion debate and look at the economic facts surrounding the issue.

In studies made when abortion was widely illegal (pre-1973), women suffered more unemployment, debt and public program participation. Denied access to abortion, women — and their children — were four times more likely to live in poverty five years later, resulting in additional economic impacts. In contrast, increased access to abortion starting in 1973 had a positive impact on women’s economic outcomes. Women with greater reproductive choice have consistently had higher rates of employment and are more likely to work full time.

Recent data shows that 70% of women — and 59% of men — in the 18-44 age group would be disinclined to take a job in a state that restricts access to abortion.

South Carolina currently has a severe shortage of workers. Proposed restrictive abortion laws will further exacerbate that situation. Can South Carolina afford to alienate a vital segment of workers? Can we risk discouraging businesses from settling here?

Still, it appears that nothing will stand in the way of our legislators’ determination to ban abortion — economic facts be damned.

Paula Smith, Bluffton

Let voters speak

Most Americans do not want all abortions to be banned. Poll after poll reflects that, as 60-70% prefer a woman’s right to choose with some limited restrictions.

Republican legislatures all over the country are in a mad rush to implement total bans with few or no exceptions. South Carolina is one of them.

The people of red-state Kansas have just shown that almost 60% of their voters do not want the legislature deciding the abortion issue

At the very least, South Carolina should also have a referendum so that every voter has an opportunity to send a message.

South Carolina may indeed vote pro-life, but at least the public would be heard.

Jack Holt, Hartsville