Letters To The Editor
WASHINGTON STATE
B&O tax: All will save at same rate
Seldom have a headline and lead story been more slanted in favor of a sitting governor or played more to class division than on Jan. 20.
The B&O tax is a flat tax and when the rate changes, up or down, those with the greatest revenue are affected the most. Where were the headlines in 1993 proclaiming the largest firms were going to pay 80 percent of the tax increase or such acknowledgment in the article?
The chart with the article is misleading as barbers and accountants are in different tax classifications. The $60,000-a-year barber paid $900 in B&O taxes in 1992 and $1,278 in 1994 - a sizeable increase of 42 percent. A bookkeeper who made $60,000 in 1992 also paid $900 in 1992, but paid $1,500 in 1994 - a whopping 66.7 percent increase. No class of taxpayers had ever been hit with such a heavy tax increase.
The governor and his people are being disingenuous in painting the proposed tax break as a bonanza to larger firms and of little benefit to smaller firms. All will be saving at the same rate.
Washington is the only state that relies upon the regressive B&O tax. Many firms that are pictured as getting this windfall tax break may actually be paying more state B&O tax than federal income tax, even after the reduction. Allan B. Hanson Veradale
Trickle-down works, is fair
Staff writer Lynda Mapes is at it again (“Relief for little guy helps big firms most,” Jan. 20), joining the Clintons in promoting class envy - a devious and divisive tool that appeals to our lower instincts and the sin of envy.
The B&O tax cut gives relief to every business equally: just less than 2 percent. The fact that the cut to higher earners is higher is fair when you look at the equal percentage. Higher earners produce more, employ more people, serve more, have higher costs and - get this - they give more to charity. It is they who give the big checks to Special Olympics, the Salvation Army, United Way, the Red Cross, YMCA, Boy/Girl Scouts - just to name a few.
I conclude, judging from Mapes’ article, that someone earning $50,000 should pay more for a loaf of bread than someone earning $20,000, right?
I would really like for Mapes to make an attempt to produce the supposed records of “booming big business” after the 1993 tax increase. Fact is, it hurt everyone - including the poor, the aged, the children and their parents. Read your own paper’s report last weekend, Mapes.
What a blessing it would be to read unbiased reporting and headlines in our newspapers. Lu Caudill Valley, Wash.
IN THE PAPER
Asay a waste of ink, paper and time
Political cartoonist Chuck Asay’s asinine commentaries have reached a new level of insipidity.
As a teacher, I found his depiction of the teacher trying to figure out new ways to shake down the government for more money to be very offensive. Believe me, when I’m making lesson plans, typing up worksheets, constructing tests and researching topics, I might occasionally be daydreaming about skiing, sailing or the movie I recently saw, but I can guarantee that I’m not thinking about how I’m fleecing the taxpayers this particular evening. I’m not even thinking about how I can add to the moral decay of America - another favorite Asayian complaint about education.
Even more offensive was his Jan. 16 cartoon that asked which is more harmful, tobacco or government regulations. I depend on government regulations to keep the air I breathe and the water I drink reasonably clean, the food I eat to be free of impurities, the products I buy to be safe, the place I work to be nonhazardous and the world around me to be aesthetically pleasing.
In the last two years I have lost my mother to lung cancer, my father to a heart attack and my father-in-law to progressive respiratory failure. All three had used tobacco during the course of their shortened lives.
Asay might think government regulations are going to destroy the public health (or is it the Bill of Rights - his cartoons never quite make it clear) more than tobacco. I have three loved ones who might debate the issue, but they can’t. Ted Wert Spokane
Billings cartoon hit low
Up to now, I have enjoyed staff cartoonist Milt Priggee’s political cartoons. However, his cartoon of Jan. 18, regarding Judith Billings, was completely inappropriate and tasteless. Billings’ brave announcement that she has AIDS had nothing to do with sex education or promiscuity.
It is hard for me to believe your paper would allow this cartoon to be printed. It doesn’t even meet the “standards” of the National Enquirer! Mary Schrader Spokane
IN THE PUBLIC EYE
First lady is no throwback
Enough, already! A.M. Rosenthal (“First lady is no Eleanor Roosevelt,” Jan. 21) can’t see the truth for his politics.
Eleanor Roosevelt may not have publicly participated in making policy but make policy she did, by nagging the president to do what she knew was right. In the good old days this was how women did things. After all, women weren’t capable of making decisions. Machiavellian? You bet.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, did it publicly with the health plan. She involved many experts in the field who had nothing but praise for her abilities. She might easily be the traditional first lady and make policy by nagging. She chose to be open. She may have thought America had changed enough to accept the abilities of women. She was wrong.
This is a highly educated woman who has worked in a world dominated by men. In hindsight, Clinton would be leading a more quiet, enjoyable life if she had continued to work at her profession, as Elizabeth Dole has said she will do if her husband becomes president.
By the way, has Rosenthal looked at the first blind trust trustee Elizabeth Dole chose? Has Rosenthal looked at the Doles’ finances?
Perhaps Rosenthal needs to stop trying to emulate Sen. Alfonse D’Amato. They’re full of fire, brimstone and righteous outrage but don’t want to look at the truth.
D’Amato represents all that’s wrong with this Congress. He’s mean, contentious, divisive, quarrelsome, contemptuous and abusive. This Congress will do more than any other circumstance to keep honest, decent, ethical people from serving our country. Ann Souza Careywood, Idaho
Woman of quality will be missed
As I contemplated and reflected upon the passing of former congresswoman Barbara Jordan, I remember how impressed I had been by her oratorical skills and the depth of her commitment to her beliefs, which were generally quite contrary to mine.
Despite my lifelong expressions and activity with conservative, ideological beliefs, when I heard Barbara Jordan so eloquently express herself, I could always find little morsels of ideas and thoughts that transcended the vast differences in our philosophies - thoughts that had meaning for me. Ideas that could in no way be categorized as conservative or liberal, but simply undisputed truths about the sameness of our humanity and our common struggle to find spiritual meaning and expression here on this Earth.
There was a real spiritual sense about Jordan. Despite our vast differences, I honor her and know her death will leave a void very difficult to fill. Ken VanBuskirk Spokane
PEOPLE IN SOCIETY
A laugh enjoyed at my expense
Sherrie Rowden (“Quit bashing those on assistance,” Letters, Jan. 19) and her seemingly popular attitude concerning other people working for her, so she can buy her kids nonessential treats and expensive prepackaged foods, makes me laugh.
Beyond the bad decisions and irresponsible behavior that puts most people in positions of need where they are, Rowden seems to think that she and her unfortunate children are entitled to and deserve to spend my hard-earned money, with no moral obligation to do what is right.
I suppose if she and others depend on me for survival and use our political leaders as examples of economic responsibility, she is right on target using the words “entitled” and “deserve” when referring to my money.
I understand that a core percentage of our population will always be dependent upon someone else for survival, and will be none too grateful for it anyway. I suppose a little compassion is needed for those too needy to care for themselves. I should also probably excuse her blatant ignorance of a social, economic, or cultural difference. My apologies.
Spoon in hand, I forget my place sometimes. Michael Harman Spokane
Better a tonic than bitter whine
In response to the welfare bashing, it sounds like everyone is being prejudiced and biased.
If you’ve never been in a situation where welfare is your only hope, you have no right to bash anyone. I grew up needing certain parts of welfare. However, now my husband and I are living well and working hard.
When you are deserted by your husband, with three children and no job, I’ll be sure to call you a lazy welfare recipient, because you won’t be able to pay bills and afford day care, as many women can’t. I do, however, agree on the buying abuses of food stamps and criticize greatly the welfare abusers. There are many.
As a taxpayer, I say instead of bashing welfare recipients and the system, let’s try helping. Calneta Beeman Fairchild Air Force Base
PAINEful reminder on every bill
With regard to Kay Hayes’ piece on People Actively into Nontheist Ethics featured in the Jan. 20 Your Turn, it’s too bad Hayes’ watchdog organization wasn’t around years ago. It could have protected us from so many religious evils that plague us today.
How about the statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments at the entrance of the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.? What about the outrageous statements made by President Abraham Lincoln, referring to God’s blessing and guidance in the midst of the Civil War? How about the time we were encouraged by our elected officials to pray for all those people injured and killed in the Oklahoma bombing last year?
I’m especially concerned when I think of Hayes having to look at “In God We Trust” on every coin and piece of currency she possesses. If it will help, I’d like to volunteer to take that offensive material off her hands. Rachel Dutro Colville, Wash.
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS
Sticky fingers at anti-gun group
The Spokesman-Review never misses a chance to badmouth the NRA and how it spends its money, so I thought you would like to know how some of those righteous anti-gunners spend theirs.
The American Institute of Philanthropy recently gave that pillar of social responsibility, the Coalition to Stop Handgun Violence (CSHV), formerly the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, a grade of F. It appears that the Coalition spent only 9 percent of the funds it raised for the stated charitable purpose of banning the private ownership of handguns. The organization raised $1,332,116 and spent only $121,572 on program services. With fiscal responsibility like that I’d change my name, too.
Pro-gun organizations regularly have their finances scrutinized, but that’s different. I wonder if Congressman Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., will ask for a hearing on the CSHV’s spending habits? Probably not. I am sure it was only an accounting error. Dale S. Weiler Otis Orchards
Be clear whose money it is
Regardless of how one feels about Rush Limbaugh, he does have a point when he remarks about government spending - that’s our money it spends so gleefully.
On Jan. 23 David Broder, who once worked for Clinton, had a column in The Spokesman-Review with regard to what his former boss would say in his state of the union message. In it he quoted White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta as saying the president had gone along with a seven-year budget deal and stricter Congressional Budget Office scoring. Panetta added, “That cost us $400 to $500 billion in future spending authority.”
Broder went on to say, “That’s money that would have paid for the promises Clinton would like to make.”
Excuse me, why are we supposed to come up with money to pay for promises Clinton would like to make to get himself re-elected?
We need to look a little closer at what politicians are saying. Most of us, I think, have enough trouble getting along on what we earn without handing over ever larger amounts to any government, for whatever reason.
Remember, that’s our money they’re spending, not theirs as they so blithely assume. E.H. Springer Spokane
OTHER TOPICS
AOL more porn prone than Internet
“Ex-professor faces child porn charges” (Jan. 24) touches on the fact that child pornography is available on the Internet, and includes the quote, “Child pornography is rampant on the Internet because of the anonymity of the user.”
Contrary to popular belief, most newsgroup postings can be traced back to the Internet provider they came from, if not to a specific user. The media should be making noise not about the child pornography on the Internet, but about child pornography on online services. One can sign on to America Online, choose a chat room from the list (most have names like “lilboypics” or “have hotstepdaughter”), and instantly get offers to trade kiddie porn.
When you notify AOL’s service crew about the room, they don’t revoke the traders’ accounts or notify the FBI. They merely suggest to the traders that they recreate the room as a “private room” (one that isn’t shown on the list, but can still be accessed by name).
America Online grants much more anonymity than the Internet does. An AOL user can create an anonymous “screen name,” use one to trade child pornography, and then delete it. There are reports of children signing on for the first time and immediately seeing a message soliciting them. That kind of harassment is virtually impossible on the Internet.
To quote Barry Crimmins from his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “I am here to tell the American people that not only are their children unsafe on America Online, their children are unsafe because of it.” He wrote an article about his experience, accessible on the Internet at ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/de/destiny/aol/ crimmins1. Jesse McGrew Spokane
Give boat races a one-year test
Hydroplane racing should be allowed, as a test situation, for one year. If that was done, I’d like to see the races held down in front of The Coeur d’Alene golf course on the lake. This would be away from the downtown city beach area.
Duane Hagadone is one of the people supporting this race, and I think he stands to benefit the most, or at least as much anyone else. If he is for this, let him donate the golf course where many thousands of people could sit on the course and observe the race. Then, maybe everyone would be happy. Dick Jurgens Spokane