More Top Picks Best Emergency Kits For Cars
player ready...In 1776, 250 years ago, at the founding of the United States of America, our first friendship was built.
The support and aid of France during the American Revolution have led to a centuries-long relationship and have remained an essential piece of the American Dream.
Yet today, the relationship we treasure and continue to reap the mutual benefits of is limited to the past. Maintaining a barrier between providing support that can lead nations to a future of prosperity.
The same rhetoric used by Americans to justify and glorify support from France in the Revolutionary War stops at the line of helping anyone except nations of the Global North.
Progress through this lens is viewed only as possible through fueling American development — and no one else’s. In reality, funding for international affairs is less than two percent of the total federal budget. Where aid and poverty relief across states is found to benefit and grow American consumer markets. Illinois has also found its place as a supplier of corn and soy for food insecurity relief programs.
Yet, 250 years into our history, the predominant misconception remains in place that aid and support of other nations burns a hole in taxpayer pockets. When programs are dismantled, and contributions from American industries lose access to large revenue streams.
What is important here is not to separate or eliminate inequalities and struggles across the United States but rather to underscore the importance of addressing both issues, and both remaining pivotal in the growth of American markets and improvement to global qualities of life.
As America turns 250 and early support is celebrated, it’s important to understand the role international affairs has in our country and what we can do to support our democracy and provide for others who seek to improve their quality of life. I’m asking that our leaders oppose any cuts to the international affairs for the interests of the U.S. and global society.
— Samantha Arnold, Roselle
‘Infinite request’
Senate President Don Harmon’s remark that an agreement on the budget requires working through “an infinite request for spending and a finite amount of resources” (“Uncertainty marks session’s last weekend,” May 30) reveals the risks if Illinois adopts a graduated income tax.
In that same article, state Sen. Rachel Ventura of Joliet echoes the claims of many politicians that the solution to Illinois’s fiscal woes lies in “asking the rich to pay their fair share” without defining who are the “rich” or what is their “fair share.” Trying to define those terms is instructive.
The number of candidates for “rich” are relatively small. The Illinois Department of Revenue’s most recent statistics — Individual Income Tax Returns Filed by Adjusted Gross Income-Tax Year 2023 — show if you define rich as any Illinois Income Tax Returns reporting more than $500,000, only 96,371 would meet that definition. These 96,731 taxpayers paid a total of $6.5 billion in Illinois income tax, which is more than the combined income taxes paid on all 4,054,850 tax returns reporting less than $100,000. Some of those 96,731 might think that is already a “fair share.”
Given that claims that the rich are not paying their “fair share” persist under the federal income tax and states with graduated income taxes, adopting a graduated income tax so those 96,371 taxpayers bear an even larger share of the cost of Illinois government is unlikely to satisfy those who allege unfairness. But adopting a graduated income tax is very likely to feed the “infinite request for spending” to which President Harmon alluded.
Because a graduated income tax is currently prohibited in Illinois, increasing “finite revenue” to feed the “infinite request” by hiking the income tax rate currently requires convincing a majority of all the voters that the spending is worth their share of the higher rate. That’s hard.
Take that restriction away and increasing spending gets much easier. Enhanced spending is more likely to appeal to a majority of voters if those voters believe that someone else — a small number of “rich” who are supposedly not paying their “fair share” — will bear the increased tax. But although the rich represent a small number of voters, they can — and do — vote with their feet and move, leaving politicians looking for someone else to pay for the spending left behind. Could that someone else be you?
— William Schmalzl, Naples, Florida
Renters ordinance
Regarding the proposed “Protecting Renters Ordinance,” ask yourself this question: How many rental properties do Mayor Brandon Johnson, Ald. Jeanette Taylor, or other so-called progressive aldermen own or manage? (“Johnson pushing sweeping changes to renter laws, and landlords bristle,” May 31). The answer, I would bet you, is none. Yet with no experience managing rental properties, they propose draconian new rules that will drive many small landlords out of business.
Don Washington’s claim that “the deck is stacked against renters,” is absurd. Bad tenants can skip out on months or more worth of rent — in addition to eviction costs incurred by the landlord. How would you feel if you got to payday and didn’t get your paycheck? How long will you continue to go to work? But landlords are expected to continue to provide all the services associated with the rental unit until the sheriff puts the tenant out. Even if he gets a judgment against a tenant, good luck enforcing it. That’s more filing fees and legal fees. Tenants, however, have access to free legal assistance — even when they’re in the wrong! So, a bad tenant faces little to no consequences, other than eviction, but the landlord suffers the consequences of that tenant’s illegal behavior! How is that remotely fair? Then there is the damage caused by such tenants. Who pays for that? Again, the landlord generally gets stuck.
A fair ordinance would provide legal assistance to small landlords like me, who are low income and barely making ends meet, especially when the tenant clearly hasn’t paid the rent! Ald. Taylor’s claim that bad landlords are not held accountable and tenants have no recourse is flatly contradicted by the current city ordinance. A landlord who doesn’t make timely repairs can be reported to the city by the tenant, anonymously, by calling 311. Tenants can also pay for the repairs themselves and deduct the cost from their rent. Fairness dictates that landlords should be included in the process of drafting this ordinance.
— Paul N. Eichwedel, Chicago
Note to readers
The Obama Presidential Center is opening on June 19. Do you have memories of former President Barack Obama you’d like to share? (Sincere thoughts only.) Send a letter of no more than 400 words by Thursday, June 11 to [email protected]. Include your full name and city/town.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected] More Top Picks Best Induction Ranges For Modern Kitchens