Question need for affordable housing, homeless funds
It is not, and should not be, the responsibility of taxpayers to make up the difference between what low-paid wage earners make and what they need for affordable housing.
The high-dollar consultants for the Lexington government kept calling the lack of housing for the homeless a problem. This may or may not be true. They did not mention that many homeless people may be coming here expecting taxpayers to take care of them.
Some people considered homeless and without affordable housing may want to live the way they do. Some are getting housing vouchers, some are getting government checks and some may be getting both. Some want to be left alone.
One council person said a $15 million fund balance could have been used for part of the problem. A fund balance is dollars the government did not spend. It borrowed twice as much as needed, therefore had half left over and spent it on council members' projects.
One council member wanted to use one percent of the five percent tax charged on insurance policies for a Homeless/Affordable Housing Trust Fund with office, staff and benefits. If the dollars collected from the insurance tax can be used for other things, the amount collected should be reduced.
What else will taxpayers be hit with because some protesters want their way at the expense of others? No protester or elected official has ever put a firm amount on what is an affordable cost. Affordable compared to what?
Austerity not the answer
Congressman Andy Barr's statement concerning the debt ceiling is nothing more than a pandering diatribe to a constituency that doesn't exist.
There is no evidence that cutting government spending creates economic growth. In fact, a study of the last 100 years of American economic and political history will show you the exact opposite.
America isn't looking for Congress to cut spending or balance the budget. That kind of thinking is based in rhetoric, not fact. The only time the budget was balanced and we ran surpluses in the last 40 years, a Democrat was in office and the economy was still subject to bust cycles.
Austerity isn't the answer to providing Americans with quality high-paying jobs. Investment in education and small business, coupled with ending corporate and high-income tax welfare will bring the changes desired by future generations: to have a fair shot at the ever-fading American dream.
Vote for CPR training
A few weeks ago, Kentucky's House voted unanimously for House Bill 205, which will require every high school student to learn the lifesaving skill of CPR as part of health education.
The bill currently sits pending in a Senate committee. Unless the committee hands it to the entire Senate soon, it will likely die this year and Kentucky will miss the invaluable opportunity to add thousands of qualified lifesavers to our communities during the next school year.
Nearly 80 percent of all sudden cardiac arrests occur in homes. Cardiac arrest can occur from heart disease or due to accidents such as drowning, auto and farm accidents and drug overdose.
Statistics show that a person can double or triple a victim's survival rates by giving the victim CPR until emergency personnel arrive.
CPR training is sensible, affordable and can be completed in as little as one class now that CPR is a simpler hands-only technique. It is already in Kentucky's Academic Core Standards for high-school health education; health class is a graduation requirement.
Not enough citizens are yet trained in CPR proven to save lives. Kentucky needs the Senate to pass HB 205 because any one of us could need CPR tomorrow.
Please contact senators at(502) 564-8100, and let them know you support HB 205.
Sylvia Cerel-Suhl, M.D.
Chair, state advocacy committee
American Heart Association/American Stroke Association
Alison L. Bailey, M.D.
Associate professor of medicine Gill Heart Institute
University of Kentucky
'Til death do us part
Now that we, in the name of fairness and equality, have decided that marriage can be any union that one desires, are we going to continue to discriminate against polygamists?
What about those who see benefit in marrying siblings or other family members? Or how about those with a particular fondness for an animal, plant or even a car?
I have a really loyal and faithful classic car that I do love; and while she does not say much, I know she loves me too. After all, I care for her like no one else would and we really do plan to spend the rest of our lives together. She has a few health problems from time to time and claiming her as a dependent for tax and insurance purposes seems very logical and just plain fair.
If I marry her, I could sign her up for Obamacare. I am sure I can find someone to perform the ceremony.
Absurd, you say? So, too, was the idea that marriage could be anything other than between one man and one woman a few years ago. I think it is safe to say that from this point forward anything can and should go. Anything less would be discriminatory and just plain unfair. Right?
But I am just wondering when you have truly open marriage on your list of editorial to-dos?
Tax without end
There continues to be a need to construct more and more schools. However, like everything else that has gone down the tubes in America, schools are no exception.
Officials expect the poor taxpayer will always be there for the schools to pay more and more property tax. Taxes are now attached on utility bills; and another tax likely will come up soon because officials simply can't stop waste.
So what is the end result? A taxpayer who can no longer afford to keep the schools going, teachers losing their positions while the higher-ups just keep climbing higher up and us poor folks at the bottom keep sinking further into the pit with no way out.
Someone, somewhere who has a lick of sense had better come up with a solution and fast, or schools will be shutting down, along with hospitals, emergency rooms, and police and fire personnel will be cut.
Taxpayers can't carry the whole burden when they are without work and nowhere to go to find work.
One at a time, Paul
I do not agree with proposed changes in state law allowing Sen. Rand Paul to run for two public offices on the same ballot. We should extend the current law so that you must resign your current office when you file for another one.
What Paul wants is to keep his Senate seat so he can continue to be paid and keep his benefits and run for president. Why should we, the people of Kentucky, have to pay for him and his family to travel all across this nation when he should be in Washington D.C.?
What if active-duty military people wanted to run for public office? Would they be allowed to keep their pay and benefits while running? For example, if it were allowable, the commander at Fort Knox could run for the Kentucky Senate seat.