webadmin

June 10, 2003

Cincinnati Enquirer

Editorial

Why did I vote Republican?

Our representatives in Columbus are poised to increase our sales tax by 20%, hiking the rate from 5% to 6%. This will be in addition to the various county rates that we endure. Therefore, our sales tax burden will soon be 7% in Hamilton, Clermont, and Warren Counties. They will be taking this additional money from us to boost spending by 11%. Extrapolating the data from the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research, this tax hike will cost Ohio over 100,000 jobs.

And if that’s not bad enough, our representatives in Washington want to enact a so-called child income tax credit for people who do not pay income taxes. Why don’t they be honest and simply call the bill “The Welfare Expansion Act of 2003”?

If I wanted higher taxes, bigger government, and transfers of wealth, I would have voted for Democrats. So I’ll ask the question again: Why did I vote Republican?

John E. Becker

June 18, 2003

Cincinnati Enquirer

Editorial

The Enquirer editorial staff got it wrong in the June 17 edition: “Child tax credits; Just do it; But don’t call it a tax cut.” They stated that “…giving money back to most of America, but not giving any to the working poor … is a bad idea, both morally and politically.”

A bad idea morally?

Fortunately, the editorial staff understands that you can’t give tax credits to people who don’t pay taxes. They are therefore endorsing a welfare payment.

Does the editorial staff understand that tax rebates are a return of taxpayer’s money to the people who paid them? And welfare payments can only result from the forcible confiscation of other people’s money?

How is it moral to forcibly take money from those who earned it and give it to those who did not? The government should use tax credits to encourage us to contribute more to United Way, the Red Cross and other organizations that can give the poor the help that they need.

The government should not force us to be “moral” by taking our money.

John E. Becker

May 8, 2003

Community Press

Dear Editor:

In the May 7, 2003 edition, Senate President Doug White discussed Ohio’s budget crisis. He correctly outlined six steps for balancing a budget.

Governor Taft and the Ohio House of Representatives have a different idea: Increase spending by ten percent and then try to figure out a way to pay for it. They want to impose a so-called “temporary” one-cent sales tax and provide us with some additional rope to hang ourselves with at the racetrack. I’m referring to Video Lottery Terminals (VLTs).

(If VLTs become a reality, I wonder if the Ohio House factored in additional expenses for the increased crime and the degradation of families that always accompanies gambling?)

Senator White also discussed the positions of competing interests. He mentioned those who desire state sponsored services versus the taxpayers who are forced to pay for them.

I’ve met with Senator White. He’s a good man and I’m confident that he’ll find the right balance between these two broad groups.

Ohio’s poor are among those that desire state sponsored services. Let’s explore an idea that could satisfy their needs without making taxpayers poor.

I expect that Senator White would probably agree that the sources for helping the poor should be in the following sequence:

1. Self
2. Family
3. Church
4. Charitable organizations such as the multitude of United Way supported groups
5. Local Government (city, township, and/or county)
6. State Government

(Note that I did not mention the Federal Government.)

What if the state offered income tax credits (similar to the $50/$100 Ohio Political Contribution Credit) in exchange for donations directly to charitable organizations such as the multitude of United Way supported groups?

A wide range of possibilities exists. The credit does not necessarily have to be dollar-for-dollar up to some limit. The benefits of this proposal are multiple:

1. The state cuts spending
2. The state cuts taxes (via the credit)
3. Ohio’s needy get the needed help
4. Ohio’s taxpayers get to choose which organizations to fund (if any). This one has a psychological impact: I’d rather know that I’m making donations that directly help people rather than sending tax dollars off to the abyss we call government. Furthermore, donations are voluntary; taxes are not.
5. Efficiency will be enhanced because money will flow directly from the taxpayer to the charitable organization. The state bureaucracy will be out of the loop therefore minimizing administrative expenses and the potential for fraud and abuse. (Note that the state bureaucracy is one of those groups who want to maximize government spending.)

I strongly disagree with Governor Taft and the Ohio House of Representatives’ decision to increase state spending and increase taxes. Furthermore, I detest the idea of having to vote on (VLTs) as if it’s an either/or proposition. This is a lose-lose situation for Ohio’s families.

Does anybody else have any ideas on how to shift the burden of the poor away from government?

John E. Becker

February 5, 2003

The Cincinnati Enquirer

Dear Editor:

Except for unusual situations, when both spouses are employed, they are almost always better off filing separate returns instead of joint.

This is due to Ohio’s progressive income tax.

The marriage penalty begins when joint taxable income reaches $5,300. (This assumes equal income and no dependents.)

With four kids (six exemptions), the marriage penalty begins when joint taxable income reaches $10,400. That same family of six will pay a marriage penalty of $258 when their joint taxable income reaches $50,000. And $668 when their joint taxable income reaches $100,000.

The only way to avoid the Ohio marriage penalty is to file separately.

Ohio law requires that the Federal return’s filing status match Ohio’s.

Filing separate on the Federal return requires that you not fund any type of IRA (unless your total income, less a few adjustments, is less than $10,000) and sacrifice a number of different credits and deductions.

Ohio has created a lose-lose situation for working spouses.

The fix is simple: Ohio should allow us to choose a filing status different from the Federal return’s.

Kentucky is one state that I know of that allows this.

January 9, 2003

The Cincinnati Post

Dear Editor:

The proposed tax cut that President Bush has announced will be great for all Americans. But, predictably, it has been assaulted by the extreme left as a tax cut for the rich. The liberals seem to define the rich as anyone who has a job and pays taxes.

Even if a tax cut were proposed for the richest one percent of Americans, I would still support it. I’d much rather see Carl Lindner spend the money than the US Congress.

John E. Becker

December 5, 2002

The Cincinnati Enquirer

Dear Editor:

It is encouraging to see Ohio’s concealed-carry bill moving forward (“FOP backing concealed-carry bill,” Dec. 4, 2002). Many supporters are concerned about the bill being too restrictive or personally intrusive such as requiring fingerprints. My concern is with the number of locations that will be classified as “gun-free zones.” The list includes churches, universities, day-care centers and others.

The purpose for concealed-carry is personal protection. It allows the good guys to have a fighting chance against the bad guys. Is personal protection somehow unnecessary in any of the listed places? I would agree that secured locations such as airport terminals, court houses, and the Federal building should remain “gun-free zones.” Metal detectors ensure that everyone is unarmed. Any other location on the list would guarantee that only the bad guys will be armed therefore making those places more, rather than less dangerous as the bill intends.

Should this bill become law, the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police believes that they will have to assume that every motorist has a loaded gun in the car. Do they not assume that now? I’m not a cop, but I would have thought that they would assume that anyone could be armed, as health care workers must assume that anyone could have AIDS. FBI crime statistics in the 44 states with concealed-carry prove that crime decreases and society becomes safer as more good guys become armed.

Ohio would be a much safer state if Governor Taft would agree to sign a concealed-carry bill with few restrictions.

John E. Becker

September 26, 2002

The Cincinnati Enquirer

Dear Editor:

Senator Daschle is playing politics with our national security. He is becoming a major embarrassment.

Also, Daschle has blocked tax cuts in order to hurt the economy for political gain. And what about President Bush’s judicial nominees?

Senator Daschle needs to get with the program or should get out of public office.

John E. Becker

April 19, 2002

The Cincinnati Enquirer

Dear Editor:

I read with horror the Peter Bronson article “What was the excuse this time?” in the April 19, 2002 edition. It was a clear reminder of last year’s riots and why the general public should have the right-to-carry concealed weapons.

Unfortunately, working downtown can be dangerous, especially for those who must drive Vine Street to get home.

Having to park downtown is also a safety concern. One of my colleagues has had her car broken into three times at the stadium. One night the thug was still in it while she approached!

The criminals may or may not be armed without regard to any gun control laws. Fortunately, we are allowed (for now) to carry concealed weapons in Hamilton County. The Vine Street incident is yet another reminder as to why it is necessary.

The “Wild West” shootouts have not happened here or in the 43 states with right-to-carry laws. In fact, a direct negative correlation has been proven between violent crime and guns. That is, the more guns in the hands of the general public — the lower the crime rates.

Governor Taft has continued to stand in the way of safety and security for the people of Ohio. If he continues to refuse to comply with his campaign promise to support right-to-carry legislation, then the citizens will have to file suit in the other 87 counties to restore our Constitutional right to bear arms.

John E. Becker

April 19, 2002

The Cincinnati Enquirer

Dear Editor:

Once again, the liberals have led the Democrats in filibustering the proposal to drill for Oil in the ANWR region of Alaska. Perhaps most disappointing was Senator Mike DeWine’s decision to join with the liberal Democrats.

Being that our national security is at stake, I propose the following: Allow Alaska to secede from the United States.

As an independent nation, the people of Ohio (or any other state) will no longer have the authority to tell Alaskans what they can and can not do with their land. They will be free to develop their natural resources in the manner that they see fit.

This will be a win-win situation for everybody. Alaskans will no longer suffer from the dictates of the EPA, Federal taxes, or burdensome regulations. They will become a wealthy independent people.

The rest of us will enjoy the benefits of importing cheap oil, natural gas, timber, etc. The increase in world supply of natural resources will drive down prices. Lower prices will drive economic expansion, jobs, and prosperity.

The OPEC countries (which include Iraq and Iran) would certainly oppose my plan. I also expect the liberals who control the Democratic Party to join with OPEC in continuing to keep our country dependent on foreign oil.

John E. Becker

12/19/2001

The Cincinnati Enquirer

Dear Editor,

Clermont County Sheriff Rodenberg has taken a courageous stance in support of concealed-carry rights for the law-abiding people of Ohio [“Concealed-carry can be deterrent to crime”, 12/19/2001].

Sheriff Rodenberg made many good points including how violent crime has decreased in states that allow concealed-carry rights. He also suggested that the split opinion among Ohio’s law enforcement officials is due to a desire to “continue their tight control over the citizens rather than legitimate officer safety considerations.”

Could another reason for the split be job security? A direct correlation has been proven between gun control and crime. That is, more gun control equates to more crime. Likewise, less gun control (including concealed-carry rights) equates to less crime.

Many law enforcement officials could be concerned that their jobs may be threatened if Ohio joins the majority of states and passes a concealed-carry law. Ohio would enjoy a lower crime rate and a lesser need for police.

I hope that Governor Taft decides to abide by his campaign promise and allow law-abiding citizens to effectively defend themselves.

John E. Becker