Legislative pensions
Here's something to think about. There is a very real possibility that the taxpayers of Arkansas are financing pensions being paid to former legislators who are former only because they are in prison for stealing from the Arkansas taxpayers.
SCOTT STUBENRAUCH
Roland
Tax chicanery abides
Tax-code revision has been addressed on both state and national fronts recently. Despite disappointing results of similar past legislation, and warnings from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and many economists, both federal and state tax-law revisions have been passed. I have noted with interest the comments regarding the effects of legislation on actual taxpayers.
While there have been glowing reports of the wonderfulness of tax reductions for corporate taxpayers and those in higher income levels, generally persons in lower (under $80,000) brackets, representing the vast majority of taxpayers, report being disappointed in spite of the promises by Donald Trump and Asa Hutchinson that their income taxes would be reduced.
The revised codes called for changes in withholding calculations but, due to manipulation of allowed deductions and exemption amounts, there have been widespread reports of decreases in tax refunds. My own state and federal returns reflect similar effects. My income from Social Security and Arkansas retiree pension has not increased, and I have had no increase in income from savings and investments, but I find I have experienced increases in taxes on both state and national bases. I had made a significant increase in charitable contributions in 2018, but this did not offset the overall effect.
I have to believe that the game of tax "reduction" is being played by and for Republican elected officials who have little consideration for most Americans and Arkansas residents. The middle class in America is being squeezed more with each taxation advance.
A more consequential result of the corporate tax reductions is the loss of governmental control of increasing deficits. Of course, since Arkansas must balance its budget, and this will be done regardless of where cuts must be made, the national deficit will continue to increase. Our children and grandchildren will have to face a greater burden.
DENNIS A. BERRY
Bryant
Concerns on Sex Ed
Ms. Terrah Graves has written that age-appropriate sex education is vital. I have a few concerns about her ideas about Sex Ed in schools.
How would the Sex Ed instructors be chosen? Would parents, clergy, counselors, science teachers, or P.E. teachers take the lead? And where would the Sex Ed content be generated? Christians and Jews have sacred literature that addresses adultery, homosexuality, and the sanctity of marriage. Yes, these are all addressed in the Old Testament and New Testament. Producers of television shows and movies flaunt multiple sex partners, adultery and homosexuality. As Dr. Phil has said, "How's that working for you?"
Test scores from many schools across the nation demonstrate our academic crisis. What part of the academic curriculum would be set aside to allow time for Sex Ed?
I believe schools are not the place for Sex Ed. Sex Ed should be happening in homes, synagogues, and churches. Families need to know the friends of their children. Know where their children are spending their time. Teach children your love is unconditional but your expectations for their success in life are high. Teach them academic success is a worthy goal. Teach them the challenges of teen pregnancies. Education, careers, finances, and personal freedom are impacted by teens having babies. Kids that are thriving in school are far less likely to engage in premarital sex, experiment with drugs, and become dropouts. Hormones are hormones. But kids sleeping around, spending weekends drunk and using dope are in a vacuum robbing them of a bright future. Sex is not a form of recreation.
KAY HICKS
Little Rock
Life is a continuum
Sperm and eggs do not have much human potential until united, and trillions die daily. The division of the parent adult cells into sperm or egg requires that the thousands of genes in the 46 chromosomes be duplicated and then exactly divided in half, twice, resulting in an exact set of 23 chromosomes with the right genes, which can and often does go wrong. Without functional sets, the fertilized egg usually dies.
When an egg and a sperm do join, they block further sperm from entering the egg, except when they fail to do so. It is estimated that well over 60 percent of fertilized eggs fail to develop further, so the female's period may be delayed by hours or by a few days without her knowing that she was potentially pregnant. If the egg's surface and mitochondria function properly, the genes of the egg and sperm may join. This cell must then start duplicating the genes and chromosomes, then dividing them correctly while turning off or on the thousands of genes to form the many types of cells necessary to make a human, and at any point the process could go wrong.
If everything has gone "right," the very complex process of growth continues to the point where live birth becomes possible. Awareness can only begin when the millions of brain cells have made all the correct working connections, which is rather late in the growth process and probably isn't really functional until after birth, and doesn't seem to be completed (for adultness) until about 20 years old. This is certainly way after development of the ability to automatically respond by moving when being touched.
The point is that "life" doesn't begin at fertilization, but is a continual process. The question most people want answered is when does "humanness" begin. Well, that is also amazing and is a continuum, which may fail at any of the steps along the way. There is also a continuum of "quality of life." It is just wrong to think in absolute or binary ways when thinking of human lives.
BRUCE HAGGARD
Conway
A hug equals a pass?
At the end of John Brummett's otherwise excellent opinion piece of April 16, state Rep. Jon Eubanks gets an undeserved pass. Brummett observed that Mr. Eubanks and colleague Jamie Scott had made nice after his "no" vote on a bill to change the designated meaning of the fourth star on the Arkansas state flag. All well and good, and Ms. Scott deserves credit here as well.
But Mr. Eubanks' stated reason for his "no" troubles me. Brummett writes, "He told me the bill was doomed and that he'd gone along with his party mates, which one must do sometimes."
Really? Since when is a lack of courage an admirable trait? Either Mr. Eubanks really wanted to vote "no," or he is so timid that he couldn't stand up to his party by doing the right thing. He can't have it both ways (voting "no" but thinking "yes"), even if he gets a hug from one of the "yes" voters as the session was ending.
RICHARD CHAPMAN
Little Rock
Editorial on 04/18/2019