Re: Wealthy dine on Bush's bread; working poor go hungry, by Philip Gailey, June 1.
Gailey gets an A-plus for tax demagoguery. Here are some significant facts he left out. The working poor families he talks about have no federal income tax liability. That's right, they pay no federal income tax. This is a tax cut bill, not a welfare bill. Why don't you just say you are for wealth redistribution?
Share this with your readers if you dare: (IRS, Statistics of Income Division, September 2002) The top 1 percent of income earners constitute 20.8 percent of the total income earned and pay 37.4 percent of total federal income taxes. The top 5 percent constitute 35.3 percent of total income and pay 56.5 percent of total federal income taxes. The top 50 percent of earners constitute 87 percent of total income and pay 96.1 percent of total federal income taxes. That leaves the bottom 50 percent of income earners who pay only 3.9 percent of total federal income taxes. So do you really want to talk about the good old liberal favorite mantra, fairness, or about redistribution of wealth?
-- Fred Pace, Gulfport
Missing details
Re: Wealthy dine on Bush's bread; working poor go hungry.
Not surprisingly absent from Philip Gailey's rant about recent tax cut legislation are a few facts worth mentioning. The article correctly states that the working poor, those families with incomes ranging from $10,500 to $26,625, are not getting a tax cut. But nowhere in the article is there mention that these families don't pay federal income tax.
The article correctly states that additional child tax credits were not extended to working poor families, but it doesn't mention that these families currently receive a child tax credit from the government. U.S. taxpayers give money to families who need it. The article is misleading.
-- Bob Borland, Safety Harbor
Charity is from the heart
Re: Wealthy dine on Bush's bread; working poor go hungry.
Philip Gailey's attack on President Bush's supply-side oriented, economic-stimulus program revealed the unintended, I'm sure.
It began with a misguided quotation from FDR, one that suggests our government is capable of charity - not real charity, which truly comes from the heart - and ends with the shop-worn suggestion that President Reagan's supply-side programs somehow failed.
-- America's political left needs to find a more effective attack. Based on the complete collapse of the national Democratic Party and its position among voters, class envy isn't working.
Across this country every day Americans reach into their pockets to help the poor. There is no other place on earth like it. But, charity doesn't start in Washington. As noted above it is a providential blessing that can never be replaced by the confiscation of private assets to fund the government's "charity."
-- Jim Parker, Tampa
Bush's mess
Re: Wealthy dine on Bush's bread; working poor go hungry.
Philip Gailey's column on President Bush is exactly right. The closing point about him changing course is a great idea, but as you have indicated, that's not going to happen. The mess that he has created cannot be corrected in the time he has left in office, as he squandered the surplus and created a large deficit each year.
The problem that I see is that not everyone understands the position he has put the country in since he became president. His popularity apparently is being measured by some "Macho Poll," which the masses seem to identify with.
I hope you are successful in opening a few eyes, as we are not better off than when he took office, not by a long shot.
-- Nelson M. Powell III, Tampa
Reefer sadness
Re: Drug war invades state elections, June 1.
Robyn Blumner made a madcap attempt to discredit antidrug efforts. Unfortunately for her, some of her statements were so outrageous the general population will have a hard time believing them. For instance, Blumner claims that, "what really can distort one's sense of reality is a blind crusade against marijuana use, a drug to be sure, but a substance that is less dangerous and addictive than alcohol and tobacco." Posh, as Ms. Blumner would say.
Marijuana, similar to alcohol, decreases inhibitions and impairs basic functions. Numerous studies also suggest that smoked marijuana is associated with increased risk of cancer, lung damage, respiratory disease and poor pregnancy outcomes. In fact, British researchers have found that the tar from one joint contains 50 percent more cancer-causing substances than tobacco, and three joints a day cause the same damage to the lining of the airways as 20 cigarettes. Last but certainly not least, if marijuana isn't addictive, why is it that 49.2 percent of youths aged 12 to 17 in drug treatment are there because of marijuana?
In reference to marijuana's medicinal value, there has never been controversy about the use of purified chemicals in marijuana to treat any illness; however, marijuana cigarettes are not medicine. The false portrayal of smoked marijuana as a helpful medicine has contributed to the increased use of marijuana and other drugs by young people.
Blumner refers to the 1999 Institute of Medicine report that found marijuana effective in addressing symptoms of nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety. She failed to mention that the same report concluded that, "smoked marijuana is unlikely to be a safe medication for any chronic medical condition."
The principal purpose of the Office of National Drug Control Policy is to establish policies, priorities and objectives for the nation's drug control program. The goals of the program are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence and drug-related health consequences. So when John Walters, our nation's drug czar, was invited to Nevada by several grass-roots organizations, he was simply doing his job. Despite his efforts to inform parents, youth, teachers, law enforcement and community leaders nationally of solid healthy messages, prodrug legalizers will continue to pule that drug prevention has a so-called partisan political agenda. Proslavery advocates insisted that trading in human flesh was a states' rights issue, too. States' rights do not legitimize this destructive stance.
As for so-called recreational drug users, not only are they damaging their own lives and risking addiction and health consequences, but they are also putting the lives of our children at risk. Their permissive attitude toward drugs and drug policy promotes illicit drug use among teens. That is what I call reefer sadness!
-- Calvina Fay, executive director, Drug Free America Foundation, St. Petersburg
Demonizing does damage
Re: Drug war invades state elections.
The idea that sending people to jail for smoking pot benefits the smoker and society is just plain asinine. Criminalization and demonizing marijuana damages otherwise productive lives. Even those who do not suffer jail or fines do suffer damaged attitudes toward the law and society. To make matters worse, criminal organizations profit from artificially inflated prices. Money that would go to economically healthy consumption is now channeled to drug smugglers and distributors.
Now we see that the government wants to use pot as an excuse to spend tax dollars in political campaigns against selected candidates. People in political authority who don't know better should not be in government to begin with. Those who abuse government power are a much greater threat to our society than those who abuse pot.
-- Bruce Tapscott, Tampa
Losing our charm
Re: Last Call, by Amy Wimmer, June 1.
I'd like to thank Amy Wimmer for this article, spotlighting the demise of local culture and history in the name of trophy houses. This is a repeating pattern in the greater Tampa Bay area that has gone on for far too long.
As a local native, I decry the loss of the area's history and charm, but am powerless to stop it as the place of my birth is turned into strip malls, golf courses, country clubs and gated communities. All of this reminds me of a phrase from local history: "Yankee Go Home!"
-- Chris Howard, Tampa
[Last modified June 8, 2003, 01:33:29]
