Feb 25, 2015 at 3:35 pm

LEO Weekly welcomes letters that are brief (350 words max) and thoughtful. Ad hominem attacks will be ignored, and we need your name and a daytime phone number. Send snail mail to Inbox, 607 W. Main St., Suite 001, Louisville, Ky. 40202. Fax to 895-9779 or email to [email protected]. We may edit for length, grammar and clarity.

Response to Miller ?at the Mic I would like to address the Miller at the Mic article on JCPS (LEO Feb. 11) and Mr. Church’s letter responding to the article (LEO Feb. 18).  What I took with me from Ms. Miller’s article was that zip code absolutely cannot be allowed to dictate the quality or depth of a K-12 education.

I ask Mr. Church why he thinks the answer is more money and to give us his list of changes he thinks would help our schools. Per pupil spending has increased steadily for the last 40 years. Teacher student ratio has gone down (fewer students per teacher) during the same period. The number of teachers with master’s degrees has risen and average salaries have increased. Dropout rates have dramatically decreased.

Money, more teachers, more computers and more testing is not the answer.  A student graduate needs to be adequately educated and prepared for work. Simple as that. With that goal in mind the community needs to decide what it takes to get there, if they want.

Ed Weyler, 40223

Another Tax … Coming to a Town Near You The Kentucky State Senate is poised to consider House Bill 1, a new tax that will reportedly put half a billion dollars in the coffers of county and city governments across this commonwealth. Interestingly this new tax is being portrayed as a “choice” by the proponents because they’ve been sold on the idea that local voters get to choose to tax themselves in order to pay for projects in their own communities.

But the only way that could be true is if the vote was conducted at the cash register. The reality is that many customers will end up paying for projects they didn’t vote for and don’t get to use. Voters in rural communities that go to bigger cities to shop won’t have any say; they will only get to pay.

Keeping up with different taxing rates between different cities and counties is going to be problematic for businesses that deliver goods, and puts retailers at a competitive disadvantage with retail shops in neighboring communities. Making the tax structure more complex eventually raises consumer prices.

This new tax increase will cost retailers and other businesses including major manufacturers that Kentucky sorely needs in increased energy costs because commercial businesses pay sales tax on utilities. A one percent hike in utility rates could be staggering to big users in this state. Businesses also pay sales tax on goods and supplies they use to operate. Business-to-business sales bring in one-third of the state’s sales tax revenue every year.

This new tax will raise a staggering $500 million dollars each year. Kentucky businesses will end up paying $165 million of this new tax and consumers will shoulder the rest. Taking half a billion dollars out of the economy is not without negative consequences on the commonwealth’s tax revenue, consumer spending and future business expansion (new jobs).

I hope the Kentucky State Senate will carefully consider the ramifications that this new tax will have on businesses and consumers across this commonwealth.

Tod Griffin, President of Kentucky Retail Federation

Awarness of BATFE ban to common AR-15 ammunition I want there to be a raised awareness of citizen opposition to the suppression of acquisition, ownership and use of the .223 caliber ammunition. The standard M855 ball ammunition is commonly used for target and recreational use. Even though there are deviants from the normal attitude of safety and regard for human life. This deviation does not collectively reflect the whole of American people. The deviation I am speaking of are those among the population who would use this ammunition to harm or otherwise destroy public property or persons. Those who properly understand the use and function of firearms and their munitions would see that this act as a direct violation of the second amendment by taking away the right to own ammunition the amendment becomes null and void. Please understand the implication.

Aaron Christiansen, Seymour, Indiana