Text Size:
A|
A|
A
Email
PrintActivists upset over electronic voting are misguided
A new wave of voting rights activists are attacking the state in response to the attempt to install electronic voting machines. Their efforts are ill-fated and show misplaced priorities. The idea of election reform in the areas of vote-counting and booth updates should improve our electoral system.
The chief complaint against new technologies in the booth is that the people have not been given a chance to test and choose their favorite machine. Not only are these people fishing for something to make an issue of, they will probably be the first to complain if federal aid is tripped up as a result of any hesitation by the state to move forward with purchasing the machines.
Besides, we've already reached the point where we can't be trusted to count our own votes, and the Democrats for Change would be wise to realize that before this fall.
SEAN FEENEY
Dormont
Wise up
Regarding the Jan. 28 article "Decision on Voting Machines Delayed": I agree with Mary Mervis of Squirrel Hill, who said that "if the county decides to go with these machines, we're going to be the laughingstock of the country."
I believe that now is the time for an honest election with a paper trail ... not a shameful rerun of the 2000 presidential election in Florida.
MARGARET FRANKOSKI
Murrysville
This land is ours
Herbert Barry ("Increase Land Tax," Jan. 27 letters) opposes property tax relief, and in fact wants to increase the tax on land. He claims that this would lower other taxes, and keep a wealthy minority from owning too much land.
But government's job is to protect our rights and provide essential services, not to decide how much real estate each of us should be allowed to own. After all, our homes, businesses and land belong to us, not to the government. And you can bet that if the government did control who gets what, it's the politically connected who would get the best and the most.
In addition, Mr. Barry overlooks the fact that different communities have different needs, and vastly different kinds, amounts and distribution of wealth. It would be very surprising if one kind of tax is best for all of them. It makes much more sense for the people of each city, county and school district in Pennsylvania to decide which kind of taxes to levy upon themselves, rather than to assume that one size fits all.
It also seems very unlikely that a higher tax on land would mean lower taxes on income, sales and buildings. Usually, when the government raises one tax, it doesn't lower others, it just spends more; and it's spending far too much already. Do we really want more of our money to go to subsidizing department stores that close after a few years, or to building more arenas for rich owners of sports team?
THOMAS GILLOOLY
Forest Hills
A good tax plan
I read with interest Thomas A. Welch's Jan. 31 letter, "True Property Tax Relief Lies in Increasing School Subsidies." As I see it there are two problems with his proposal to have the state increase school subsidies from 30 percent to 50 percent using gambling proceeds.
First, no one knows for sure how much revenue is going to be realized from gambling. Second, unless the state mandates that school districts reduce property taxes by the amount of the increased subsidy, many school districts will not decrease the school property tax but will find ways to spend the increased funds and future tax increases will surely come.
There is only one solution to the school property tax problem: It is the Commonwealth Caucus Plan, which started in the House of Representatives but never got out. That plan lowers the sales tax while increasing the number of taxable items and services, increases the state income tax slightly and completely eliminates school property taxes.
Who benefits most from this proposal? Obviously, it's senior citizens on fixed incomes. However, some day all of us will be senior citizens and those paying a little more today can look to their retirement without having to worry about paying the very high school-property taxes that exist today.
Unfortunately the Democrats and Republicans are trying to best each others' plan. Everyone should contact his or her senator or representative and ask them to vote for the Commonwealth Caucus Plan.
ANTHONY J. BIONDI
South Fayette
Empty words
Robert Traynham, communications director for Sen. Rick Santorum, referred us to the Santorum Web site to understand the senator's position on Iraq ("About This Criticism," Jan. 28). Mr. Traynham was responding to a Jan. 24 letter from a PG reader who criticized the senator's Jan. 18 piece, "Telling the Whole Story About Iraq" (which was a response to a Jan. 16 Post-Gazette editorial, "Santorum's War"). The letter writer said the senator was being vague about the war's progress and its objectives.
I read Sen. Santorum's Jan. 18 piece and visited his Web site. I found nothing that defines the senator's position on winning the war, the terrorists' objectives or the progress being made in Iraq. Like others who refuse to acknowledge that we were lied into this war, which had nothing to do with 9/11, Mr. Santorum's Web site is filled with airy idealisms about taking pride in "our nation's national security objectives" and ensuring that the troops "are well-equipped and return safely." It sounds patriotic, but not substantive.
The senator will never admit the enormous costly mistake of invading Iraq. Because to do so, he'd probably rationalize, undermines our chances of winning. But what are we winning? For that matter, who is the enemy? The senator would answer, as would any Bush administration loyalist, "the terrorists." Had our armed forces not been replanted in Iraq to search for the ever-elusive "weapons of mass destruction," perhaps we could have brought 9/11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, to justice. How many people remember him? What about al-Qaida?
Amazing what a catastrophic quagmire like the Iraq mess will do to a national consciousness.
MATT BARRY
Munhall
Plenty frivolous
Late last year, Walgreen Co. suspended four Illinois pharmacists who, citing moral and religious beliefs, refused to dispense emergency contraceptives. The pharmacists were in violation of state law. They are now suing Walgreens.
Where is all the outcry against frivolous lawsuits? These pharmacists were fired for refusing to do the job they were hired to do (i.e. dispensing prescription medications). Frankly, I cannot see where the injustice is.
If someone holds certain religious convictions, it is his or her responsibility to find a line of work that is compatible with them. What if someone was hired at a grocery store and then refused to ring meat products because her religious beliefs do not allow killing animals? What of the employee in a gun store who refuses to sell guns because he opposes violence on religious grounds?
Should the employer and the public "accommodate" such beliefs? Or would the employer be justified in warning employees that either they perform the duties involved by the job or be fired?
FRANCESCA di POPPA
North Point Breeze
Act of meanness
I took my disabled parents shopping at a Kaufmann's on Jan. 21. I proceeded to look for a handicap parking spot up front, but all were taken. Since I needed extra space to get my parents and a wheelchair from my truck, I opted to take several spaces in the far end of the parking lot of the mall.
When we returned, I found the whole side of my truck key-scratched several times, with a note attached to my wiper blade naming me as an idiot for taking so many spaces.
My parents no longer want to go out because of what happened. They feel terrible about it. I hope the people who did this feel good about themselves for what they did.
RENEE M. BERNABE
Greenville
As the rich gorge, the poor get squeezed
The headlines in the Feb. 2 Post-Gazette couldn't present a starker contrast as they point to the gross inequities in our society: "McGuinn in Line for $43 Million," "Bush Defends Exxon's Profits," "House Passes $40 Billion in Entitlement Budget Cuts."
I do not know Martin McGuinn, I only know of him and his leadership of Mellon as analyzed in the Business section. I don't care how ably he served his stockholders -- no individual is worth $43 million. Nor are oil companies entitled to such scandalous profits, when elderly home owners and the working poor cannot pay their home heating bills this winter.
Thankfully, Gov. Ed Rendell and the Legislature have invested state revenues in LIHEAP (the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program). But where is the justice when our state tax dollars must be spent to protect the vulnerable because of exorbitant profits by big oil? Contrast such excesses with those victimized by the congressional budget action: the working poor, college students and Medicaid recipients.
While Congress defends tax cuts for the affluent, its only attempt at deficit reduction is on the backs of the weak, the vulnerable and the poor. Shame on our local legislators who rejected the admonitions of the Catholic bishops and mainline Protestant and evangelical leaders that Congress not punish the least of those among us by these reductions.
DONALD B. GREEN
McCandless
