|
Post by falgar25 on Mar 20, 2009 3:56:11 GMT -4
A disclaimer, just in case.... What I am about to write is in no way intended as a criticism of mcbeth, I am only criticizing the concept within his article. I think it is quite a bit sick to use the disabled to promote an increase in taxes! When "it's for the children" can't be used because that one was spent on the slots bill they have now stooped to "it's for the disabled." If funding these programs is so important to society, shouldn't they target a larger section of society (or everyone) to make sure they have enough money? Or are the programs only important if they can be paid for by those who consume alcohol? When gas taxes are raised to fund highway work at least there is a logical connection. When bridge tolls and fees are raised to fund bridge work there is a logical connection. When tobacco taxes are raised to fund health care there is a logical connection. When alcohol taxes are raised to fund care for the severely disabled.... Or is there a fairly ugly, unspoken assumption here?
|
|