Letters

Only part of the story

Tom Dillard, in his fine column last Sunday on Lonoke County, mentioned: "Joe T. Robinson was the second governor hailing from Lonoke County. Robinson had a remarkable political career, serving as a U.S. congressman and U.S. senator in addition to governor."

While that is both true and remarkable (David Pryor is one of the few others to have done all three), it is only part of the story.

Joe T. was also minority and majority leader of the U.S. Senate, the latter with FDR in the monumental days of the New Deal. He was also the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1928 with Al Smith, a candidacy that many political scientists suggest laid the groundwork for the FDR victories in 1932/'36/'40/'44 and Harry S. Truman in '48. (Smith added big cities and Catholics, and Joe T. kept the Solid South.)

But the biggest prize was snatched from Arkansas (and Joe T.) by his death. There is considerable evidence that FDR had promised him a U.S. Supreme Court seat, perhaps even the Chief Justice.

ROBERT JOHNSTON

Little Rock

To teach nonviolence

Rather than just saying, "Stop the violence," we need to help people of all ages learn what to do, such as teaching anger management techniques, nonviolent conflict-resolution techniques.

PTAs, schools, churches, community centers, etc., can be a powerful force in teaching these techniques and taking a small step toward reducing this multifaceted, systemic problem.

PAT SMITH

North Little Rock

Ways to dusty death

In response to Larry Hacker's letter, why don't we just chop off death row inmates' heads or burn them in cages, or any number of horrific scenarios? After all, what they did was horrific. Hopefully, it is because we are not like them and we never want to be, although some of the things I am hearing make me wonder.

This is also an argument against the death penalty.

SALLY J. MAYS

Roland

A bipartisan solution

Bipartisanship is in short supply these days, and it is often mistrusted by both sides when it does happen. There is one bipartisan group, however, we all can feel good about supporting, the Climate Solutions Caucus (CSC) in the U.S. House of Representatives. This caucus serves "as an organization to educate members on economically viable options to reduce climate risk and protect our nation's economy, security, infrastructure, agriculture, water supply, and public safety." Americans overwhelmingly believe that global warming is happening, and that carbon emissions should be scaled back. The CSC is exploring ways to do this that both sides can embrace.

One solution the CSC is asked to enact is the carbon fee and dividend policy. "A national, revenue-neutral carbon fee-and-dividend system would place a predictable, steadily rising price on carbon, with all fees collected minus administrative costs returned to households as a monthly energy dividend." Other industries pay to clean up their waste. Why should the fossil-carbon industry be let off the hook? Returning this revenue as a dividend to every family would spur consumer spending. It would be good for conserving our environment and good for our economy.

The CSC and the dividend system are supported by nonprofit, nonpartisan groups such as Citizens' Climate Lobby, Audubon Society, and Arkansas Interfaith Power and Light. I call upon the entire Arkansas congressional delegation, especially my own congressman, Rep. French Hill, to join the Climate Solutions Caucus and support the carbon fee and dividend policy to address global warming in a bipartisan way.

DONNAL WALTER

Roland

About taxing the rich

The top 1 percent in the United States earn more than most of the population combined and thus many people believe that the rich should be required to pay higher taxes.

However, I would argue that there are many problems with taxing the rich at a higher rate. This would decrease the incentive to use money to start new businesses and the incentive for others to start new businesses to become rich. Doing so would decrease economic growth.

New businesses increase job growth, local investment, and consumer spending, introduce competition into the markets, and spur innovation. Silicon Valley in California is a perfect example of this because it gave rise to many popular companies today such as Hewlett Packard, Google, and Apple.

However, taxing the rich will slow down economic growth. It would discourage people from starting up new businesses. People wouldn't want to create new businesses knowing a big portion of their hard-worked earnings would be taxed. Instead of investing their money in a new business, people would spend it elsewhere, which wouldn't impact the economy as greatly.

Thus, while taxing the rich more sounds like a great idea, the perks do not outweigh the cons.

ELMA ABDULLAH

Little Rock

Welfare drug testing

A debate rages about whether drug testing should be required for those receiving government assistance. Quite a few people see this testing as unconstitutional and a waste of taxpayers' money. Others think it is stereotyping those on welfare, and believe it is completely wrong.

I believe taxpayers should give the financial support that is necessary, and the recipients of that support should use it responsibly; it is a two-way street. Most taxpayers would not want their money being used on things such as illegal substances. Drug testing could make sure that welfare recipients continue to use the aid in the right places.

Many employers require that you take a drug test before being hired, so why shouldn't welfare recipients have to do the same before receiving assistance? By having more requirements to get and keep welfare, it would motivate individuals to depend on it less, and perhaps they will work harder to find jobs.

Aside from that, welfare drug testing could assist those that need help to overcome an addiction. Identifying those that need treatment and getting them the help that they need would benefit society as a whole.

KENNEDY HUTCHINS

DeValls Bluff

Editorial on 04/23/2017

Upcoming Events