Regarding the July 16 news article “House passes Trump’s proposal to make daylight saving time permanent”:
I support eliminating the practice of changing our clocks twice a year, but switching to permanent daylight saving time isn’t as easy as the president claims. The discussion rarely focuses on the key issue, which is the latitude of states and the difference between sunrise and sunset times at different times of the year. Northern states have the greatest variability between the shortest and longest days. In Seattle, the difference is a swing of 7½ hours. Key West, Florida, however, has the least variability at only about three hours.
Of course, changing to permanent daylight saving time would not affect the variability, only the time of sunrise and sunset. So though the change might be relatively easy for residents of Florida, like President Donald Trump, it wouldn’t be for millions of Americans.
Carol Goodloe, Arlington
If permanence is the goal, why is Congress choosing to make daylight saving time the standard?
A more reasonable approach would be to give up the daylight tinkering that began last century and keep standard time year-round. Should the Senate prove deadlocked on this silly issue, as it has proven on weighty ones, why not a compromise: Advance our clocks permanently by a half hour. This would put us out of sync with the rest of the world, but that’s where we are already on issues that matter.
Nicholas Carrera, Frederick
I have been a multisport high school and college official for a decade. The push for permanent daylight saving time frequently cites a mistaken assumption that shifting the clocks would be beneficial to youth sports.
The claim that permanent DST would help winter sports is a misconception. During the darkest winter months, between mid-December and February, almost all sports events are indoors, such as basketball, wrestling, ice hockey, swimming and diving, and indoor track and field. Therefore, moving the winter sunset an hour later is useless for athletes, but it forces morning commuters and schoolchildren into dangerous, pitch-black winter sunrises.
Even in the spring, the debate is irrelevant. Sports starting in March, like lacrosse and soccer, often use indoor stadiums. For baseball fields without permanent poles, modern portable LED light banks solve visibility issues affecting game scheduling.
Permanent standard time keeps Americans’ lives aligned with the natural sun. Congress should not force kids into freezing, dark winter mornings to protect an afternoon twilight that sports leagues do not even use.
Congress should look at actual sports schedules, recognize modern stadium technology and make standard time permanent.
Ilya Zhitomirskiy, Rockville
The median senior
The July 12 editorial “No more regressive subsidies for seniors” stated that the average net worth of seniors aged 65 to 74 is $1.8 million. That’s true, but the average is skewed by the small number of extremely wealthy seniors. A more illustrative number is the median wealth, which is $410,000 for 65-to-74-year-olds. Put another way: Half of 65-to-74-year-olds seniors have a net worth under $410,000. They are not millionaires!
Donald Brady, Ellicott City
Capital investment fuel
The July 9 news article “Boomers will pass down massive wealth — mostly to heirs who are already rich” quoted Jeremy Ney, a professor at Columbia University’s business school, as saying, “Wealthier Americans are going to be putting that money into the stock market or real estate. It doesn’t buy groceries or cars, it just changes your accountant’s week.”
Perhaps buying stocks or real estate doesn’t “buy groceries or cars,” but it does help finance industries that make those things available. Without capital investment, food and vehicles would cost much more.
Michael Hoyt, Silver Spring
Lower degree costs
The July 7 online morning briefing “Nursing and other degree programs now qualify for higher student loans” on the restoration of higher federal loan limits for nursing and other graduate students raised a critical question: Why do degrees cost so much that students need to borrow up to tens of thousands of dollars a year to earn them?
Increasing borrowing limits may help students finance their graduate education in the short term, but it does little to address the underlying issue of rising tuition. If anything, expanded access to federal loans may cause institutions to lose the incentive to control costs.
The nation needs more nurses and teachers, and financial barriers should not keep qualified and passionate students from entering the profession. But a successful system should not be measured by borrowing capacity. It should be measured by whether colleges can deliver high-quality, career-focused programs at a price that eliminates the need for excessive borrowing.
Geordie Hyland, Tampa
The writer is president and CEO of American College of Education.
Letter submissions
Send letters to [email protected].
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.