|
To the
editor:
I grew up thinking that Springfield,
being centrally located in the state of Illinois, was the capital.
Now all of a sudden, we have a governor who wants to place some
state offices in Chicago. Is this right or fair, and especially to
people some 360 miles [away] at the most southern part of the state.
Also, is he
not the first governor who refused to live in Springfield where he
belongs? Is his "family" so much better that they cannot live in
Springfield? A mansion is in Springfield for him; is it not good
enough? How much tax money is being wasted on his constant traveling
from Chicago to Springfield? Perhaps Cook County should become a
state of their own, and let the rest of Illinois be a state.
 |
This is ridiculous. The Senate and
House should do something about this, or perhaps the voters of
Illinois can handle it at the next election. This, however, would be
an action too late. It appears that Chicago and Cook County have a
governor, not the state of Illinois.
J.M. Presswood
Lincoln
(posted
2-16-04)
|
|
This is an election year. We will be
hearing all the good things the candidates will do "for the people"
if they are elected. We must remember it is "the people" who will be
paying the bill, while the politicians take the credit. The promises
may not be in the best interest of the nation, but they have an
appeal to groups of Americans that produce blocks of votes.
The rich are receiving some hard hits
from the politicians who preach redistribution of the wealth. The
definition of "the rich" fluctuates greatly, depending on the
politician's audience. This past summer I ran across the following
statistics, on the Internet, that were credited to the nonpartisan
Tax Foundation.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers account
for 37.5 percent of the income tax collected in America, while they
account for only 21 percent of total income.
The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers
account for only 4 percent of income tax collected while they
account for 14 percent of the total income.
From which group do you think job
creation will come from? Does it make sense to continue to increase
taxes on the top 1 percent each year and yet expect these same
people to reward us with new or expanded business or industry?
Believers in big government continue to
be successful in expanding government, until today the federal
expenditures have reached $2.2 trillion and growing.
In 1900 a person would have had to work
only 20 days to pay all of their taxes; in 1950 it had increased to
88 days; in 1980 it was up to 109 days; and by 2000 it was up to 120
days, according to the Tax Foundation.
During the past three years Tax Freedom
Day has been rolled back to 109 days, due largely to the 10-year
Bush administration tax cuts passed in 2001 and accelerated in March
2002.
[to top of second
column in this article] |
While tax-and-spend proponents tag the
2001 tax cuts as serving only the rich, it appears they are having
the desired effect on the national economy.
Despite the tax cut critics, the fact
is that whenever tax rates have been cut, economic growth has
bounced back and the unemployment rate has declined. When President
Kennedy's proposed tax cuts were enacted in the early 1960s, the
lackluster economy shifted into high gear, and by the end of the
decade increased tax revenues led to a balanced budget. When
President Reagan cut tax rates in the midst of the 1981-82
recession, the economy recovered so strongly that tax revenues rose
by nearly $400 billion over his presidency. When congressional
leaders talked President Clinton into signing a capital-gains tax
cut and other tax incentives, the stock market shot up to record
highs, and the economy took off and federal revenues skyrocketed,
yielding budget surpluses. Since the Bush tax cuts were accelerated
in March 2002, all economic indicators are up, stock markets have
bounced back, jobless claims have fallen, housing sales are setting
records, retail sales are climbing, and consumer confidence is
rising again.
I agree with those who believe the
government bureaucrats do not need more money -- they just need to
spend more frugally what we give them -- and that socialism is not
the direction they should be taking this country with their
redistribution-of-wealth tactics through the tax code.
Citizens for
Justice, Inc.
Lester C. Van Bibber III
President
Lincoln
(posted
2-16-04)
|
