Don’t raise taxes; make cuts

Don’t raise taxes; make cuts

EDITOR:

I felt compelled to write after reading that Rep. Hagan and a few other representatives want to raise Ohioan’s taxes. Rep. Hagan keeps referring to rollbacks implemented by the previous governor, but I recall many new and higher taxes were implemented during Taft’s tenure. In fact, there was much talk of his higher taxes, even in the national media, because he was a Republican (a party that used to be known for cutting taxes and fiscal restraint). But that is really beside the point, the truth is Ohioans cannot afford higher taxes. So many people have lost their jobs, and the ones that still have them or are retired (or still have businesses here) simply cannot support unrestrained spending. We are hurting too much economically.

And on top of regular taxes, all the different townships and counties push through their special levies. And, then usually because of poor voter turnout, these levies keep passing, because the “powers that be” put them on May ballots and keep ramming them through until they pass. They rely on voter apathy, and it seems they have it down to a science!

Gov. Strickland has done a favorable job up to this point. All he would be doing if he raises taxes would be to hurt the economically challenged state of Ohio and its citizens, especially its seniors and other fixed-income persons. It also will push some citizens and businesses out of Ohio — that is if there is anyone left who wants to buy our property so we can leave.

The focus of our governor, representatives and senators should be on cutting waste — then cutting services that aren’t necessary to the state’s or citizens’ survival. Believe me, we Ohioans can deal with the latter. We don’t need all the extra government fluff programs while the economy is in the doldrums. Ohioans are tough. We can survive.

Also Rep. Hagan does not believe we can live with fewer libraries. Of course, it’s just another scare tactic to try to bring people around to paying more taxes. But if it really would come to pass, can we live with fewer libraries? To quote a president, “Yes, we can!” We can live without many things. Keeping a few of the larger libraries open in the Valley during this downturn can still service the community adequately.

And finally — contrary to popular belief nowadays, government is not here to provide you everything for “free.” Every time you accept or agree to something free from the government, you (1) pay more taxes, (2) lose a little more of your freedom, and (3) government takes a little more control of your life. It’s not much different than accepting money from your in-laws.

Tell the state, city and county Governments to tighten their spending belts — not keep taking more and more dollars from you— or they will not win their next election.

SUSAN FRY

Youngstown

Watch where cuts are made

EDITOR:

In the first moments after experiencing an injury, we’ve all probably looked at a wound and thought, “uh-oh, that’s gonna hurt soon.” In the same way, some of us have warily watched the economic downturn, waiting for its wave of painful effects to register in our own lives. That day has come for me.

On June 19, Gov. Strickland proposed a number of cuts to balance the 2010 state budget. Among them was a cut in funding of public libraries that the Public Library of Youngstown and Mahoning County predicts will cause the closing of most of its branches. Ouch! I am an unabashed “librariphile”. Like many West Side children, I got my early education at the West Side Branch. I learned more in the stacks there than in my overcrowded elementary school, although visits required making a weekly three-mile round trip by foot or on my little bike.

From that time to this, patrons of that branch are familiar with children at the tables and the computers at this busy library, which is close enough to Volney Rogers, Chaney, and McGuffey schools for classes to walk there. As a teacher, I have realized that for a child of limited means, only Christmas or birthdays can rival the thrill of picking out your own book for free Or sitting in a comfy chair to read or use the computer for free. Free!

Here in Mahoning County we have seen a renaissance of sort in library services, facilities, use, and celebration during the last two decades. That period coincides with changes in library funding initiated by Gov. Celeste in 1983, establishing equity and a steady of revenue for libraries in all Ohio counties by means of the Library and Local Government Support Fund. From 1993 through December 2001, the LLGSF enjoyed increases parallel to economic growth experienced in the state budget. But because the LLGSF is tied to a percentage of the Ohio’s General Revenue Fund, the libraries have faced continuing reductions in funding since the economy began its slide in 2001. In each biennial budget since then, library supporters have fought to keep satisfactory funding.

Governor Strickland has struggled mightily to protect current funding for k-8 and higher education. As it stands, his budget framework has some specific setbacks for technology, gifted, STEM projects, Developmental Disabilities, Youth Services and the administrative budget of the Ohio Department of Education, and that is probably inevitable. Cuts to school funding would be devastating, especially for districts like Austintown and Youngstown, which are depending on state funding to operate.

So library funding will probably be cut. Our own library has some funding from a local levy, unlike 70 percent of libraries in Ohio. That is hopeful. Also there are still choices in any budget, regardless of how small. I call on the library’s board to remember the primary mission of public libraries. When Andrew Carnegie established large numbers of public libraries at the turn of the last century, his idea was to make books available to those without access. If branches are to be closed, then certainly the expensive public relations firm, glossy posters of local celebrities, impressive decorations, and purchases of land for future growth may face the ax as well. We’ll be watching.

PEGGY KERRIGAN PALMA

Youngstown

Dissecting an op-ed: ‘They’ aren’t as dumb as ‘we’ think

EDITOR:

Normally, I would not comment on an op-ed column (Vindicator: 6/21/09, J. Edward Hackett, “Not all traditions are moral”), but my friend thought Mr. Hackett had made some good points. So did I, at first. Then we discussed his article and we both were amazed that this educated man not only did not have any good points, but the points he made were seriously flawed.

First, Mr. Hackett has no clue as to why conservatives promote tradition. He ascribes to them motivations that fit his premise rather their profile and does it in a demeaning way, such as describing their view of history as television-ish or more to his point – boob-tubeish. “They discover history without thinking...” He writes. Yet, he is willing to misrepresent history in moral terms when in reality the lack of women’s voting rights and the 3/5ths Constitutional definition of African-Americans for representational purposes had considerable practical and, yes, moral validity. He commits the very intellectual crime he ascribes to conservatives.

His other argument against conservatives is their tendency to resist change based on the slippery slope theory. His dismissal is simple, “this type of talk ignores the possibility of a middle-ground.” Then, he fails to recognize that civil unions are the middle ground. It gives gays full legal rights while preserving the sanctity of marriage. In fact, his entire oped is riddled with his refusal to see the compromise aspects of the very historical solutions he rails against.

Finally, we wondered just who is this “we” he keeps writing about. He continually declares that “we” see history more thoughtfully and “we” accept compromise more readily and “we” conduct ourselves more morally. They, the conservatives, are simply not as thoughtful, compromising or moral as “we.” Yet, his op-ed, for all its pretensions, is not very thoughtful, misses the obvious compromises, and fails to define morality.

My friend and I didn’t quite see the superiority of this “we.” Maybe after he gets that PhD, he’ll do a better job in his next op-ed of convincing that lowly “they” of how truly lowly they are.

CINDY BARIE

Lakewood

‘Free’ health care was a bad idea from the start

EDITOR:

Thanks for Last Sunday’s article on health benefits, both those for government and private sector employees.

The reality of tax-exempt commercial health insurance is that it was bad product from the moment it was cooked up by 1920s do-gooders. Imagine a benefit that instantly creates three-tier costs of labor, which commercial health insurance does, and that’s just for starters. Strapping a “truncated universal” like Medicare onto commercial health insurance risk pools, which is what Lyndon Johnson and the 89th Congress did, made as much sense as hitching a Ferrari to the Budweiser Clydesdales to get more horsepower.

Trust me, though. No amount of arguing or rhetorical gimmickry will persuade even the best-intended and brightest among our medically insureds there’s something profoundly wrongheaded about the benefits they enjoy at what they mistakenly take to be very little cost to themselves.

On Capitol Hill, the current tortured debate over health care reform makes me think of the course that slavery took from the signing of the Constitution through its abolition by Civil War and subsequent Constitutional amendment.

There was opposition by sentiment, formal arguments in opposition, direct action by such means as the Underground Railroad, Constitutional delimitation of the slave trade, political wrangling and compromise over slavery’s expansion, melioration of the conditions of those held in bondage, the example of England’s emancipation of its slaves, and the manumission by many Americans of their own slaves. Yet, for all the good they did, these incremental measures allowed slavery to become ever more entrenched with cotton agriculture and the Southern patrician lifestyle.

Don’t our senators see something similar with health care? Two-thirds the nation is allowed approximate medical purchasing parity, all of it assisted by massive government intervention, such as enormous direct purchasing and huge tax preferences. Another third is completely ignored, except for the ritual bleating about the medically uninsured, or is corralled into politically vulnerable risk pools such as SCHIP and Medicaid. Is getting health care for sick people a good thing, or not?

How much longer is this expected to go on?

JACK LABUSCH

Niles