Page 4 - Dinuba Sentinel 4-12-18 E-edition

Opinion
A4 | Thursday, April 12, 2018
In My Opinion
Newspapers provide a means of civil discourse
Fred Hall - Publisher
Personally, I have to admit that I was somewhat taken aback by the response of a reader
to my usage of the aphorism “A rising tide lifts all boats.” An aphorism is defined as a terse saying that embodies a general truth or astute observation.
Although I failed to attribute, the saying is generally credited to John
F. Kennedy and is associated with the idea that general improvements in the economy will benefit all participants
in the economy. Kennedy used it in a 1963 speech to combat criticism that a dam project he was inaugurating was a pork barrel project.
I do take umbrage with being called “ignorant” simply because of a long list of “privileges” which the writer chooses to presume that I enjoy. Name calling of a subject about whom one has no knowledge is always a dangerous tack to assume. “Privilege” and “racism'” have become far too common and predictable on behalf of members of our society. When such terms are so freely overused they completely lose their intended impact.
The writer should be thanked for reading the newspaper and recognized for her willingness to get involved
in affairs which impact the entire community. We admire her fortitude. We believe the original intent of newspapers was not only to inform but provide a means of civil discourse on public issues—a very different mandate than today's social media which is unedited and anything goes! Seldom will one find any sort of civilized discussion therein.
In the event you may not have
seen the letter of which I speak it's available in the April 5 edition of The Dinuba Sentinel. A copy is available for review on their web site or one may pick up an issue at one of Mid Valley's locations in Reedley, Sanger or Dinuba.
Most people have lived in California long enough that they are no longer surprised to discover that there are actually consulting firms who aid
and abet governmental and quasi- governmental agencies in packaging
Guest Column
Fred Hall
and assist in selling tax increases to the voters. Just a few years ago a large Bay Area consultant group swept through the Valley helping small towns get the vote out to support an item which was packaged as a “safety tax.”
A slanted telephone “survey” was undertaken, using fear tactics, to prove to area small towns that the voters would support paying more money in the name of “safety.” Purportedly the money collected was to be spent on enhancing Police and Fire protection through improvements which were to be funded exclusive of general fund expenditures.
Fortunately some of these little towns had the foresight to “sunset” the tax. Reedley was not one of those with the tax passing in perpetuity. That simply means it never goes away. Others saw the need to end the tax
on a day certain but have abused the sudden availability of extra money.
We see this as a cautionary tale against citizens ever voting to impose a tax on themselves—whether it's a bond issue or a simple tax. Everyone, especially in California, would realize by now that when money is taken from the private sector and placed
at the discretion of bureaucrats one can always anticipate mischief in
the way those funds are spent. Our recommendation is that citizens should always turn a jaundiced eye to those in government when they say they need more money.
Empirical figures as well as experience should have proved to all of us by now that when people who did not work for your money get their hands on it, it's a safe bet they will squander what you labored for. If you believe I am wrong, please provide an example of how tax money is carefully spent.
But, as always, that's one man's opinion.
Fred Hall is the publisher of the Sentinel.
Guest Column
Why Taxes?
T
paychecks. So intense is the dislike in some cases that over the past few months people have willingly signed petitions by those collecting signatures at Wal-Mart to “Stop the Gas Tax” or “Stop the Tobacco Tax” or something similar.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association is one of
the organizations gathering signatures to repeal an increase in the gas and vehicle taxes that were put into place under Governor Jerry Brown. The Association’s reasoning is that the State of California is misusing the money. Historically, gas taxes went to much needed road repairs, with only a minimal amount reserved for the State general fund or other projects. But, the Association says on their website that “the money will instead go to boondoggle spending projects.” They hope to qualify an initiative for the November 2018 ballot that would repeal the increases.
It is indeed distasteful to think that government is wasting taxpayer money. The anger at any wasteful spending would be justified. However, there could never be a 100 percent repeal of taxes, whether gas taxes or income taxes, because the money paid into government coffers also does some good.
In 2004, there was a movie by Sergio Arau called “A Day Without a Mexican” that had as its central premise the impact that the disappearance of Mexicans would have on California. Some people called the movie farcical, amateurish. Immigrants rights groups even protested as they believed the movie was a statement against the Latino community.
Despite its crude story-telling, what “A Day Without
a Mexican” did was spark dialogue on the value of immigrant communities to California and to the United States as a whole. Some of the lessons learned may
have been forgotten in the intervening fourteen years. However, some of the lessons learned remain and can be applied to the tax question.
Araujo has not yet directed a movie about taxes, but we can still think about what would happen if all taxes were abolished. Think potholes are a problem now? Try driving over a deeply pockmarked road that nobody
will ever fix – there go your tires and suspension system! The next time
a school improvement bond comes up for a vote, instead of hating on it, consider that its intention might be to improve the quality of education for our youth. Without taxes, we would lose our firefighters and policemen, public school teachers, community health workers, air traffic controllers,
axpayers might fear having to pay even more of their hard-earned money to the government than has already been taken out of their
Miguel Pizano
One no-brainer way to bring gun deaths down
and much more. Without taxes, it would be every
man for himself. It would be “Hunger Games” but worse!We should still protest wasteful spending! There is no reason not to tell Governor Brown or any other politician that taxpayers demand accountability. We did work hard for our money, and just because the government can take it doesn’t mean the government has a right to misuse it.
Since not paying taxes is not an effective way to protest, what can be done? The first thought I have on this is to ask you to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. If you want to let someone know you are angry about the waste, you can sign the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association petition. On some level, there is power in numbers.
Other opportunities to make sure the government does what it is supposed to with your taxes is to attend informational meetings, write your state Assemblymen or state Senator for California tax concerns, or contact your federal Senator or Congressman for federal government tax concerns. To look up your state and federal representatives, go to this website provided
by the California Secretary of State: http://www.sos. ca.gov/elections/who-are-my-representatives/
The most important way you can make an impact on how your taxes are spent is to make sure filing taxes is not the only tax-related action you take. Ask questions of your representatives, think critically about bonds and levies as they come up, do some research. Do not stay silent if you see something wrong. Your happiness at tax time will depend on it!
Miguel Pizano is an HR Supervisor who works in Dinuba and lives in Tulare.
It’s now been over a month since 17 teenagers were gunned down at Marjory Stoneman Douglas
High School, culminating in a march that brought nearly a million people to the capital. Yet Congress is still dragging its feet on guns.
While Republicans and Democrats gridlocked over the best way to prevent shootings, the Oregon state legislature took action to prevent a particularly deadly form of gun violence — and
it didn’t involve arming teachers or outlawing AR-15s.
Just one day after the devastating Valentine’s Day shooting in Florida, the Oregon House of Representatives passed a bill to close what’s called the “boyfriend loophole” in its gun laws. The new law will prevent anyone from buying or owning a firearm who’s been convicted of stalking or domestic violence, as well as people with active protective orders against them.
While federal law is already supposed to prevent gun ownership by domestic abusers, the law’s outdated definition left out those who didn’t live with or have children with their victims — hence, the boyfriend loophole.
While this news received relatively little coverage, it’s a huge step forward and will unquestionably save lives. Over 1,000 women are murdered each year by current or past husbands or partners — that’s three women a day, or one woman dead each time you sit down for a meal. And though the story of the battered wife is not an unfamiliar one, a recent study at the University
of Pennsylvania found that over 80 percent of intimate partner violence incidents reported in 2013 involved current or past dating partners, while current and past spouses accounted for less than 20 percent of incidents.
As Americans continue to get married later and less frequently, the nationwide population of unmarried adults will grow, which is why closing the boyfriend loophole should be a top priority for lawmakers across the country.
Oregon’s new law makes it the 24th state to officially close the loophole, but there’s still much work to be done. The federal law prohibiting gun ownership
for abusers doesn’t actually outline
a mechanism for them to hand over weapons they already own.
Aniqa Raihan
Twenty-seven states require convicted abusers and those subject to protective orders to relinquish their half of those specify
firearms, but only
whom the weapons should be given to. And just four require law enforcement to proactively remove guns from offenders rather than wait for them to be turned in.
Meanwhile, 13 states have no laws at all to prevent domestic abusers from owning or buying new guns. Six of those states are in the top 10 with the highest rates of gun deaths.
Representatives Debbie Dingell (D-MI) and Dan Donovan (R-NY), along with Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), have introduced legislation to close the boyfriend loophole on the federal level. But that alone won’t be enough to ensure that abusers don’t have access to deadly firearms.
We need thoroughness and uniformity across state lines. We need specific systems to remove weapons from dangerous people, including laws allowing law enforcement to seize weapons found while responding to reports of intimate partner violence.
We need legislation requiring
law enforcement agencies to report offenders for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
And, of course, we need universal background checks on all gun sales, no matter where they occur.
Survivors everywhere deserve support, security, and peace of mind, and it’s long past time our laws reflect that fact.
Aniqa Raihan is a writer, activist,
and community organizer with a focus on violence against women. She led a movement against campus sexual assault at the George Washington University. Distributed by OtherWords.org.
Join the discussion
The Dinuba Sentinel welcomes submissions of letters to the editor on topics of local relevance. Word limit is 350. Letters are considered once per month for each submitter.
Letters must include the author’s name, phone number and address for verification. Mail to 145 South L Street, Dinuba,
CA, 93618, or e-mail to editor@thedinubasentinel.com. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity. Libelous letters will not be printed.
Guest columns will be considered for publication -
E-mail editor@thedinubasentinel.com. Word limit is 650.