Letters to the Editor: 08.04.11

+ We’re getting what we voted for
Dear Editor:
There is absolutely no evidence that keeping taxes low for the wealthiest Americans and corporations is good for anyone but them. There is no credible evidence that it will create jobs and help those 98% of Americans who are not wealthy. In spite of the recession last year, our wealthiest got wealthier and corporations made record profits. That is why Republicans never cite evidence supporting their outrageous claims in favor of continuing wealthy tax breaks. There is none. Check it out on the Web. This is a major sticking factor now in why Republicans will not agree to raise the debt ceiling.

Last fall, many of us thought that voting new people into office would help. Unfortunately, many of the people that we voted for had little experience in governing but very strong ideas. Ideas that go against the basic policies of our country’s brightest and most experienced economists. Ideas that also go against common sense and the American way of caring for one another. Many Republicans (though not all) are saying that they do not believe that we need to raise the debt ceiling. They do not believe, or maybe care, that this will cause much greater hardships for many already suffering Americans — those same middle and lower class Americans that these newly elected officials claim to be working for. Now we are paying the price.

Well, we are getting what we voted for. If you care, pick up your phone and call your congressman.
Brad Hardin
Venice

+ A 3% cut in pay is still a 3% cut in pay
Dear Editor:
It continues to amaze me how Rod Thomson can twist the truth to pit people in the middle class against each other. He argues that by having a 3% cut in state payments for retirement, such workers “are still winners because that 3% of income is still theirs.” The fact is that the 3% cut to payments that is going into pensions is a cut not a win. Workers in fact are forced to use their income to patch up that cut, and then he wants to call that winning?! I wonder who really thinks that 3–3=6.

He argues it helps the economy because the pension funds are invested. The problem in this argument is that prior to July 1, there was 3% from the state being invested in the pension funds and the full income of the workers spent by them as consumers or going into other investments. Now, 3% of income is going into the pension fund, but there is less money with which to buy things, including the goods and services advertised in this newspaper.

There is no way around the fact that: 1) The majority of state workers are not overpaid, they are in the middle class or lower; and 2) a 3% reduction in take-home income is not a gain, it rather is a tax on one sector of the middle and lower class. Furthermore, state workers pay taxes, including property taxes. I would rather not get tax cuts. I get more per dollar by investing in public education than on a video game for Christmas or outings to the theater. If you think you can get more for less, consider why do most of politicians and wealthy Americans pay dearly for their children’s private schools? You get what you pay for.
Sarah Hernandez
Sarasota

+ Deep changes needed in Washington, D.C.
Dear Editor:
The talk and noise in Washington, D.C., should remind us of the warning by George Washington about political parties and the division they cause.

The issues today are not about good government and sound economics, but are about who will prevail and who can make the others look worse.

Basic economics tells us that our spending binges and vote-buying must stop. Excessive taxation and low morality are undermining the character of our nation. Those who caused our crisis now want to give us more of the same.
Will we allow it?
John Lewis
Venice