Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Repealing state sales tax exemptions would be disastrous

If the Florida Legislature will not act on its own to review current sales and use tax exemptions (as you argue in your editorial Stalling on tax reform, Jan. 2) then you yourself have made a good case why the so-called "FAIR" amendments would be disastrous.

These proposed amendments to the state Constitution would allow voters in November to automatically kill hundreds of sales and use tax exemptions totaling about $9-billion and begin taxing excluded services to the tune of another $20-billion. The Legislature would have to repeal each of these constitutionally imposed tax increases.

"FAIR" would allow the Legislature to raise billions of dollars in taxes by simply doing nothing. No vote, no nothing, and the exemption would die automatically, creating a new tax on the hardworking taxpayers of Florida. This destroys our system of checks and balances and is an unaccountable way to raise taxes without an affirmative and recorded vote.

These amendments also contain ambiguities and create unintended consequences. For instance, the use tax, charged on goods and services purchased outside of Florida but used in-state, is not specifically cited in these amendments. A review of sales taxes but not use tax would discriminate against in-state sellers in favor of out-of-state sellers, putting Florida's employers and 1.3-million retail employees at a clear, competitive disadvantage.

A system that schedules tens of billions of dollars of exemptions to be automatically repealed is harmful for the state's economy and sends the dangerous message that our basic tax system is subject to a radical, dramatic change and uncertainty for businesses and workers alike.

Florida TaxWatch has been involved in this issue for more than 20 years and found that the vast majority of sales tax exemptions - in terms of dollars - are fully justified and recommended a process for the review of the remainder. Our research is viewable at www.floridataxwatch.org

Ken Pruitt is loyal to his philosophies

I read with interest the Jan. 28 column by Times staff writer Steve Bousquet and the Jan. 30 editorial, both of which launch unwarranted attacks at Ken Pruitt, the next president of the Florida Senate. In his column, Bousquet notes a lack of senatorial support in defense of Pruitt. I suggest that there is indeed very strong support for President-designate Pruitt.

One of Pruitt's most endearing qualities is his loyalty. He has been fiercely loyal to both his political party and to the leadership of the presiding officers. Pruitt is at the same time fiercely loyal to his own political philosophies, which are based on conservative family values and providing policies designed to empower families to lead healthy and successful lives.

Bousquet makes it seem as if Pruitt picks and chooses when he is moderate and when he is conservative. Times readers will be happy to know that Pruitt doesn't play that game, but rather judges each issue on its own merit.

With his assumption of the Senate presidency in less than a year, Pruitt now has his first true opportunity to be more vocal on his ideals in order to set the stage for a successful presidential term. In the past, his fierce loyalty to his leaders prevented him from being quite so outspoken. The Times editorial noted that Pruitt offered no apologies for his conservative point of view. Readers should be thankful for this, as they are getting in Ken Pruitt a leader who does not back down from what he believes is right.

Lawmaker's proposal is opportunistic

Re: Hit-run sentence fuels legislation, Jan. 27.

First, I found the subheadline of this story somewhat deceptive and manipulative: "Two Tampa brothers are dead, yet Jennifer Porter is free." Jennifer Porter is emphatically not "free." She is on house arrest for two years, her movements are severely restricted and subject to close scrutiny.

Second, state Sen. Victor Crist (in whose district I live) will not be getting my vote next election. Porter's attorney Barry Cohen described what Crist is doing as "opportunistic," and I wholeheartedly agree with him. The so-called "Wilkins-Caldwell" bill is clearly designed to pander to minority voters within Crist's constituency.

Too much leeway for hit-run drivers

Re: Cookie-cutter justice, editorial, Jan. 28.

Sen. Victor Crist's proposal is a step in the right direction but does not go far enough.

There is no reason to leave the scene of a serious accident except to get help or if one feels he or she might be in danger from mob violence from witnesses, etc.

The idea of giving someone 24 hours would only encourage drunks to go home and sober up. Instead of improving anything, this 24-hour hiatus would only make things worse. Why reward those who have such little regard for their fellow man?

Many homeless have mental problems

Re: Let them seek jobs and shelter, letter, Jan. 24.

The letter writer suggests that the homeless get jobs to earn sufficient income to rent a roof over their heads so that they're not easy targets for bored punks.

Apparently he is unaware that more than half the homeless are on the streets as a result of former President Ronald Reagan's cutbacks on funding to our nation's mental hospitals. When Reagan challenged the criteria as to who could be admitted and/or retained in mental hospitals, these poor souls were literally "dumped" out on the streets to fend for themselves.

If you don't have an address, you can't receive Supplemental Security Income or any other type of financial assistance. When you have mental problems, no one is going to hire you, nor will that person be "logical" enough in their thinking to look for a job.

This country should be ashamed of the way it treats mental patients, senior citizens and all others in need of help. Their needs should be considered before our government worries about those in foreign countries.

Compassion can have a down side

All the recent articles surrounding the homeless have reminded me of how it was living in Northern California. So many people felt sorry for the homeless that new homeless shelters and food banks were popping up in nearly every neighborhood and town. My hometown of Petaluma started seeing a great influx of the homeless due to our hospitality and new shelters.

Lo and behold! Our parks became filled with the homeless. There was the new stench of human urine and the constant barrage of "spare some change?" in all our local parks and even at the public library. Our little town, where no one locked their doors, soon saw the horror of a little girl being raped and murdered by a transient.

Call me cold and callous, but I've seen the downfall of allowing the homeless to sleep in our parks and libraries. I have to say that Sarasota is starting to sound like my kind of town.

[Last modified February 1, 2006, 01:03:19]