A home sales tax

would not help

economic recovery

Missouri does not tax real estate sales ("Realtors attack tax on property sales," Oct. 12). That's great. Adding a tax would not help the economy recover. If you tax something, you get less of it not more.

Sales of houses and other property already are depressed to record-low levels. Taxing real estate transactions would further depress prices and sales. Fewer new houses would be built, keeping the demand for labor and materials depressed, which would keep sales and income taxes depressed, too.

I cannot understand how anyone could defend or support adding taxes to overburdened citizens. The government is a mindless thing without compassion or judgment. Government is a virtual entity made up of laws, regulations and procedures. It would take all your money if it could.

Any proposed tax on real estate sales should be blocked by any means. Fortunately, Missouri legislators are unlikely to vote for such a tax increase. A constitutional amendment would make sure that creating such a tax is difficult, if not impossible — thank goodness.

Stacy Landers — New Haven



Government greed

Addressing the property tax issue is a great idea ("Realtors attack tax on property sales," Oct. 12). Homeowners should be entitled to refunds or a credit on property taxes; they should not have to pay the state if and when they are lucky enough to find a qualified and willing buyer. Demonizing Realtors for waking up this issue is unfair. We are raising awareness about an important financial issue for Missourians.

The only thing "unpatriotic" here is the very idea that a group of concerned citizens, led by Realtors, should not be allowed to rally against something unjust. More than 50 percent of recent house sales were bank-owned, foreclosed or otherwise distressed properties. To impose another burden on the people of Missouri in the form of a "transfer tax" is a great example of government greed.

As the real estate market struggles to recover, our great legislators in Jefferson City need to look elsewhere for extra revenue. Taking more from sellers who are lucky enough to walk away with any profit is not the answer to the deficit.

Connie Bequette — Arnold

Realtor, Paul A. Meyers Real Estate



Feudal management

Regarding "Recession prompts layoffs in state parks" (Oct. 20): Missouri state park employees understand that budget cuts are necessary, but a merit-system layoff process is an evil way to do it. More than 100 jobs will be lost after employees finish a process of bumping each other out of a scant number of jobs. Bumping friends and respected coworkers with less service time hardly is a morale booster. It's more of a mental aerobics class for sociopaths or an experiment in feudal lord management.

Many of the jobs are part-time with few or no choices close to one's home area. How many of the lucky job winners can afford to make double mortgage payments with lower wages while waiting for the old house to sell in a dead market?

Park employees who attended a meeting in Festus were willing to take a pay cut or go on furlough. But we were told that while several options were considered, layoffs were chosen. Similar agencies in other states and at the federal level use furloughs.

Laying off more than 100 state park employees was said to be the "tip of the iceberg." Laying off 15 percent of the state's 30,000 employees creates an iceberg of 4,500 people. Is Gov. Jay Nixon prepared to throw thousands of state employees and their families into poverty instead of incorporating sensible solutions like pay cuts and furloughs?

Layoffs might be needed, but we should try to keep as many Americans employed for as long as possible. Was this just an opportunity to throw a little weight around?

Dale Hallett — Granite City



Congress has proved

it can't contain costs

After reading "The cost of failing is too high" (Oct. 20), a commentary by Hugh McVey, president of the Missouri AFL-CIO, I realized that the cost of doing something might be even higher.

Surely, Mr. McVey understands that before we'd hire his union members, we'd like to see an example of their work. In the case of the United States government, that might not be good.

When Medicare was introduced in 1965, Washington predicted that the program would cost $12 billion in 1990. Oops. The actual cost in 1990 was $90 billion. Same thing for Medicare's hospitalization program. The actual cost in 1990 was $67 billion instead of the estimated $9 billion.

After adjusting for inflation, Medicaid also has exploded, with costs rising almost 25 percent from 1965 to 1990. It now costs 37 times more than it did in 1965. And these are but small pieces of the health care bill that President Barack Obama promises not only will contain costs but actually reduce the deficit.

As anyone looking to hire a contractor will tell you, if someone has done sloppy work in the past, he will do so again. Congress has yet to produce a program that has cut or contained costs.

Rich Stevens — St. Louis

An 'ism,' but not capitalism

Missouri AFL-CIO President Hugh McVey, in his commentary "The cost of failing is too high" (Oct 20), refers to a public health insurance option — which many members of Congress are advocating — as Capitalism 101. It's definitely an "ism," but it's not "capitalism."

Perhaps Mr. McVey should go back to "ism" school before writing another commentary. This is a typical tactic of the socialists who are destroying our country: If the agenda that they are trying to force on Americans sounds bad, just call it something more appealing. The voters won't know the difference.

Fortunately, many Americans are waking up and are resisting. Many in Congress are trying to dismiss tea parties attendees and 10th Amendment advocates as "quacks and nutcases." But they are concerned constituents who are unhappy with the status quo and the options that they have been offered.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a socialist duck, Mr. McVey. Quack, quack.

Bob Buscher — St. Louis



Convincing gift

Ellen Goodman, in her column "A $250 donation" (Oct. 23), asked how we could justify "the transfer of $13 billion or $14 billion to seniors." The answer is simple: President Barack Obama is hoping that the gift, to be paid for (with interest) by the grandchildren and/or great-grandchildren of the recipients, will display his empathy for seniors and convince them to vote Democratic in the 2010 elections.

Bob Walter — Glen Carbon



Higher prices,

but no inflation?

I want to know where Ellen Goodman lives because I want to move there. If her cost of living is decreasing as she claims in her column "A $250 donation" (Oct. 23), it is the place to live.

Since it was announced that there would be no cost-of-living increase in Social Security checks in 2010, my rent has gone up $20 a month, my Medicare supplement premium has gone up $25 a month, and there has been an increase in the sales tax. Gasoline has increased 50 cents a gallon in the last two weeks. Other items not included in the formula by which the government figures cost of living also have increased in price.

Government workers will get a wage increase on Jan. 1. I wonder if Ms. Goodman is looking forward to any income increase next year.

I trust that she remembers that a portion of the money that goes to pay those $250 checks she opposes comes from the federal taxes that we pay, even those of us who are retired.

John Downing — Belleville