Letters: Readers say why they didn't vote

Recently, the state Democratic committee sent me a letter that stated that, while they wouldn't know for whom I voted in the election, they would know if I didn't vote ["Party will know if you skip vote, Dems told," News, Oct. 31]. They promised that they would be contacting me to find out why I failed to show up at the poll. Let me answer the anticipated question publicly.

First, I didn't vote because I cannot find anyone who really qualifies for office. Some voters in our area had to choose from among candidates who are under indictment for tax fraud, suspected of bribes and graft in public office, or who've shown inadequacy in the positions that they will be vacating.

I also resent the numerous campaign calls, some of them recorded, that interrupted my life, often in the late evening. I've been turned off by the negativity of ads.

Finally, I really cannot believe that millions of dollars are poured into campaigns in this country where so many people are suffering, where many are still homeless, waiting for relief from the losses of Sandy, where food banks are constantly asking for help to provide food to struggling families, and where cuts in education and public services have become the norm. It's unconscionable that candidates spend so much money to gain office and then ignore the needs of this country.

I cannot in good conscience vote in a system that encourages inadequate candidates to run in a society where the "war chest" is a major factor in achieving a government position.

Lorraine Mund, Hicksville

A recent letter writer asks people who didn't vote to give a good reason why ["Voting is a right earned by sacrifice," Nov. 7].

I haven't participated in a national election since I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984. He believed in abolishing nuclear weapons, abolishing communism, and abolishing communism's great protégé, big government.

For whom would I vote today? The Republicans are the party of predatory corporations, low wages, profiteers, and exploiters who'd outsource everyone's job overseas before dropping bombs on countries that never attacked us. The Democrats are the party of parasitic government, high taxes, goldbricks, and leeches who'd give everyone's job to immigrants here illegally before dropping bombs on countries that never attacked us. We have a moral obligation to abstain from this sham.

Voting is meaningless when the system itself is the problem. Would I consider voting in the future? Yes, if the leaders of China, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan or half a dozen other countries became eligible to run for office in America. They, after all, have undertaken policies that have greatly increased their countries' middle class, standard of living, literacy, health care, life expectancy, and commitment to science and technology. And while they believe in a strong military defense, they have not bombed or invaded anyone.

Paul Manton, Levittown

Nassau Leg. counts on borrowed cash

The Nassau County Legislature was thinking of refusing a $41 tax increase ["End to tax fight," News, Nov. 11]. This fight was pathetic and fiscally ridiculous.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey, as of 2012 Nassau, was the 13th richest county in the United States, with a median annual household income of $93,214. Our county taxes pale in comparison to our immense school tax burden. Our county budget deficit is in the tens of millions. How far will $41 take you these days?

The legislature would rather wait for me to make a mistake at a red-light camera and bill me $80 instead. The legislature wanted to borrow more money to pay for property tax refunds, as if replacing debt with debt is the fiscally responsible thing to do, particularly after the heavy borrowing of recent years.

Delaying a tax increase too long would build up so much debt and deferred costs that the tax increase would have to be 34 percent, not 3.4 percent. But if all the voters care about is property taxes, then our legislators were politically correct, even if they were fiscally incorrect and irresponsible. Kick the can down the road, then blame your successor for a huge tax increase.

Dan Okrent, Hempstead

UN sounds alarm on climate change

"UN climate report warning" [News, Nov. 3] was shamefully buried on Page A41. It said, "limiting impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero this century."

That pronouncement doesn't sound as scary as the rest of the report. UN scientists clearly state that fuel emissions must be reduced by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050, with serious mitigation efforts underway by 2030 to have a "likely" chance of holding warming to 2 degrees Celsius, a level at which scientists believe human societies can still adapt. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon rightly says, "Science has spoken . . . . Time is not on our side."

While international talks are unlikely to achieve what is required, a publicly rebated U.S. carbon tax with a border adjustment on nonparticipating countries would ensure worldwide carbon pricing, accelerate investment in cheaper, cleaner energy and grow our economy. Science has indeed spoken. Now we must act.

Jeanne Brunson, South Setauket

Editor's note: The writer is a volunteer with the Climate Reality Project, which advocates for action on global warming.