It makes sense to keep Volusia County’s ECHO tax going | LETTERS

See ECHO possibilities

This past May the County Council was pushing hot and heavy to raise the sales tax a half-cent, which would raise the price of everything we buy outside of groceries and prescription drugs. That means for every $1,000 of items purchased we would pay $67. Now they want to "lower" our taxes by doing away with ECHO.

[OUR VIEW: Ask Volusia voters what should happen with ECHO funding]

ECHO, which stands for Environmental, Cultural, Historical and Outdoor (recreational) programs was approved by the voters in 2000 and has two more years to run. The tax which is part of our real estate taxes, is charged as 20 cents per $1,000 of taxable value. That means a home with a taxable value of $200,000 pays $40 per year to fund the program.

[READ MORE: Volusia mulls early end for ECHO tax, while advocates push for more]

The council believes there are no more projects which need to be done. I can think of a bunch of problems which could be addressed just using the Environmental funds. We need to get properties off septic tanks and onto sewers. We need storm water management, as well as cleaning up Mosquito lagoon and the Halifax river.

We used to have an international festival which brought cultural events and tourists from all over the world. Fund that. What about creating more off beach parking? Build more parks. I'm sure I could go on. It wouldn't be hard to find many projects the money should be used for. We don't need taxes for roads for developers but we do need taxes to improve our quality of life here in Volusia County. Keep the ECHO fund going and revitalize its mandates.

Jane Glover, Ormond Beach

A moral challenge

In respectful response to letters questioning whether health care is a right, I would like to offer an alternative perspective. Since the Constitution's ratification in 1788 and the Bill of Rights in 1791, liberals and conservatives have debated between a loose interpretation and a more strict or literal interpretation of our Constitution. Regardless, we can all agree that the Constitution is a framework for government that protects the rights of individuals and defines the powers of federal and state governments. All of our

rights as citizens could not feasibly be itemized in the Bill of Rights, thus the inclusion of Ninth Amendment, which protects rights not specifically stated in the

other eight amendments.

There's also Amendment 14, which states that a citizen's life, liberty or property shall not be denied without due process.

Could a person's life, quality of life and personal freedom be inhibited or denied by their

lack of access to basic health care? Asking whether health care is a right means questioning our federal republic, our democracy, and our sense of civic virtue

as a people.

"The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped." --Hubert Humphrey, 1977

Terri Smith, Palm Coast

Keep vote intact

When I read letters advocating the popular vote over the Electoral College in our national elections ("Try popular vote,", August 1, 2019) I wonder if the author and many others urging such a change know where they live.

Most citizens of our country say they live in the U.S., the states or simply America. Rarely does anyone say "I live in the United States of America." Perhaps they should -- considering the states would never have voted to unite if each one of them was not permitted to hold their own election every four years to select which candidate would be their president for the upcoming term.

Using the popular national vote rather than allowing each state to send their electors to Washington would result in an outcome that would completely eliminate the wishes of many, if not most of the individual states. Talk about one's vote not counting; that would be the ultimate example.

The progressives were able to alter the intended structure of our founding father's wishes when they were able to enact the seventeenth amendment. The former ability of each state's legislature to appoint their own senators then changing to allow the popular vote was able to substantially reduce each individual states representation in Washington. That was enough damage. Let's not permit the left to worsen the situation again.

John J. Meirose, Daytona Beach Shores

Lock down networks

America needs strong cyber security now.

Multi-billion dollar weapon systems all require networks of computers and access to GPS to set targeting information, and GPS information to guide them to their targets. On board ships, ground warfare weapons and airborne fighters and bombers' defensive systems all use computers, GPS and networks to know where they are, to analyze data to determine a threat, initiate defensive action and launch anti-threat defensive/offensive systems.

Nowhere do I see a major budget item to protect our sophisticated weapons. Without strong cyber protection, our weapons become useless targets.

Strong cyber protection is required to protect the networks (everything is controlled by computers networked together) that keep us safe from cyber-attacks including our voting machines that are the backbone of our Democratic system. Yet Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, just refused to fund increased cybersecurity for the coming 2020 election.

We have all heard of cybercriminals taking over hospitals, cities, etc computers, encrypting the data and demanding a ransom. If we, our government, does not immediately invest in very strong cybersecurity, our country is going to be held hostage and defenceless.

This is a bipartisan issue that must be addressed now!

Harry R. White, Ormond Beach

The wrong conclusion

The data isn't leading us. The writer of the Aug. 1 letter "Just The Facts" is.

While it is a fact that crime rates are higher where economic conditions are weak and it is a fact that Democrats are more frequently elected in economically disadvantaged areas, it is not necessarily a fact that Democrats have a monopoly on corruption. That information is volunteered by the writer.

Richard Spangler, New Smyrna Beach

Dire predictions

The doom and gloom Democrat presidential debates revealed how radically the progressives have moved the party to the left and it's frightening. Bernie Sanders and most candidates espouse Medicare for All at an estimated cost of $32 trillion over a decade. It dismantles the Democrats' legacy Obamacare for single-payer government-run health care that would eliminate private health insurance. So, if you like your insurance and your doctor, too bad, but illegals will get free health care.

Consider the job loss, diminished and delayed access to quality care, and higher taxes on everyone.

The Green New Deal, with a cost that some project could top $92 trillion over a decade, would address the apocalyptic predictions that the world will be destroyed in 10-12 years (depending on the candidate). According to Al Gore's 2008 prediction that the entire North Pole ice cap would disappear in five years, we are already living on borrowed time. Candidate Andrew Yang warned, "it's time to move our people to higher ground."

Elizabeth Warren considers President Trump racist for advancing racism in the climate, environment, economy, criminal justice and healthcare. What does that even mean? Hatred and identity politics conceal real solutions by wrapping them in inexplicable forms of racism,

Most candidates endorse de-criminalizing illegal border crossings, which sounds like open borders that threaten our national security and sovereignty.

The dark psychic force that Marianne Williamson warns is probably the radical Democrat propaganda and false promises of economic security in exchange for the loss of our hard earned personal freedoms and prosperity.

Madeline Bizette, Port Orange

Follow the money

I don't completely disagree with the decision by the federal reserve to lower interest rates. But I do disagree with the unnecessary bullying by the president who expressed disapproval in Chairman Jerome Powell for not signaling that there will be more cuts in the future. The last I checked, cuts are normally made to stimulate a sluggish economy, not jumpstart an already booming one. Personally, I think this president is looking for bragging rights more than anything else.

I don't think that we necessarily need a full swing to the progressive left in 2020. But whether it's a moderate Democrat or centrist Republican, I'll support a candidate who will promote fiscal responsibility including deficit reduction and environmental stewardship which are both lacking in the current administration. These can be accomplished while also achieving long-term economic growth. This will be a much better deal for our future economy and might even be our saving grace.

Mark Smiley, DeLand

___

(c)2019 The News-Journal, Daytona Beach, Fla.

Visit The News-Journal, Daytona Beach, Fla. at www.news-journalonline.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.