Lake Stevens Journal - Your hometown newspaper since 1960

 

Your letters for October 31, 2012

 

October 29, 2012



The governor’s job means fixing state debt

Dear Editor,

The debate between Rob McKenna and Jay Inslee showed that neither candidate would support “new taxes.” Whichever man wins the election will face a growing state debt that is now over $16 billion.

The purpose of this letter is to advocate for Washington State to completely replace its current tax, fee and toll systems with a moderately progressive income tax.

This idea is described in papers on a website: http://www.future4washington.webs.com. The website also has a paper, “Please vote No on I-1185,” and provides an explanation of why.

An example is given on the website of a moderately progressive income tax. The Legislature and Governor would design the actual progressive income tax. Philanthropists could take tax deductions in the amount of their charitable giving.

The same tax system would provide funding for resources for the unemployed to enable them to return to work.

I am a math teacher with 14 years experience with Tacoma Schools. This website is part of a research project that I call Transition 2030.

Eric Paulsen

Seattle


Say no to R-74 to redefine marriage

Dear Editor,

I am writing with some trepidation about R-74, knowing this is an issue full of deep emotion and conviction for most people. Nonetheless, I am writing to encourage us to think about why marriage ought not be redefined in our laws.

Currently, under the Domestic Partnerships, “Everything but marriage law” passed in 2009, same-sex couples already have the same rights and benefits married couples do.

The main question is whether or not the government, through legislation, should actively promote a new definition of marriage, which would mean that everyone, regardless of conscience, would have to abide by that definition.

Whereas natural marriage for centuries, as a rule, has been the stabilizing force for society by producing and rearing the next generation, same-sex relationships don’t seem to provide this or other significant societal benefit.

For this reason, government promotes natural marriage. In the same way that it’d be an overextension of the government to actively promote particular friendships, though mutual friendships are certainly a good thing, the government doesn’t have a sufficient reason to promote a new definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, especially considering that they already have the same rights as married couples.

Same-sex couples are entitled to respect and to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for all society.

Please reject Referendum 74.

Carly Greenland

Lake Stevens

 

Reader Comments

(0)