Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Referendum, Bonds, and a ridiculous immigrant situation

I'd call the Holiday Weekend an excellent one.  Can you remember the last time we had a full weekend with such nice and relatively rain-free weather over the Memorial Day Weekend?  Sure, we had some clouds off and on, especially mornings, but overall I loved the weekend.

In just one week, sooner for those of us who vote absentee, we will be deciding on some statewide questions.  I'm urging a "YES" vote on Question One.  Although the proponents say it would lower our taxes, notably the Income Tax, they continue to fail to point out that the lowering of the rate for high income residents and the raising of the rate for low income residents will actually in two or three years cause most of us to pay higher taxes. 

Those higher taxes become assured when one realizes that those deductions we're use to taking, like property taxes, medical expenses, etc., will be eliminated and replaced with a decreasing household credit that disappears as one's income passes the $40 thousand mark.

Coupled with the new sales taxes on more than 100 goods and services, which the proponents also seem to ignore in their arguments, we are assured of putting more money into the state's coffers and less in our own pockets.

I also will be voting "NO" on all the bond questions, but I always vote against them.  The state uses bonds somehow, but I'm not sure I've ever seen an accounting of them, but I'd not be surprised if very little of the money goes to the advertised purpose.  For example, how much money has been approved over the years for road construction or jobs?  What is the condition of the roads today?  You can answer that by just taking a little ride.  How about the number of created jobs?  56 in ten years.  Yet you'll probably approve those bonds again this year.

Remember, bonds are not free money.  They have to be paid back with your increased taxes.

I read a story in  the New York Times Sunday about a Wells couple being, or has been kicked out of the country.  I think I've read the story locally, too, or have seen it on TV.  It seems this British couple has been in the U.S. for several years on a business visa.

The Visa has to be renewed every two years, but there are no limits on the number of times it can be done.  This year, the application for renewal was denied by the immigration service and they were ordered to leave.  The reason:  The government said their little restaurant business was marginal even though it earned enough money to pay for the establishment and a nearby rental property and four employees.  Their only debt, apparently was the mortgage on their home.

Not good enough, said the immigration people, and the business has been shuttered, the couple told to leave, and the loss of jobs became the fate of their employees.  The Times article says that the situation is facing more and more immigrants in this country legally.

During the same weekend thousands of people were protesting in Arizona over that state's new law calling for the enforcement of a federal law concerning illegal immigrants.  And the federal government seems to be turning its head away from enforcing those illegals who are draining the nation's economy while it kicks out legal immigrants earning their own way and paying their own bills.

It seems like a ridiculous situation to me.


*****Don't raise your taxes.  Reject the increases by voting "YES" on Question One next Tuesday.*****

No comments: