Blog Archive

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

On Act 72 and what it means.

I'm very concerned about Act 72 because of the perception it gives to the taxpayers of Reading and the state of Pennsylvania.

This Act 72 isn't true tax reform. It is a gambling bill, and I am not a proponent of gambling. It sends a very dangerous message to the children in the state of Pennsylvania; it tells them that the government thinks it's okay to gamble for education funds. I am very troubled by the implications of this bill and it will be one of the hardest votes I have ever had to make. My moral background does not make me a fan of gambling, and many religious leaders in the state will agree that Act 72 is an affront to our moral values.

It gives School Districts permission to raise school taxes with the rate of inflation and also takes power away from School Boards with a back end referendum. The personal income tax will rise, which will encourage more of the wealthier people in Reading to leave, and above all, it will take $1 billion gambled away to give any substantial relief to the homeowners in Reading.

If I vote yes, it's only because the majority of homeowners are in desparate need of tax relief. But if I vote no, it's because of my principles and convictions alone.


(The School Board voted tonight on Act 72 legislation. 7 Board members voted for opting into the legislation. Only 2 members (Stamm and Steffy) voted against it.)

1 comment:

David Bowie said...

Mr. Stamm: With Act 72 being linked so closely to Act 71 it is the whole State of Pennsylvania that you should be concerned about. Simply put this is just BAD public policy. There is absolutely NO way that the State should be in the business of promoting a destructive and addictive program, and then rationalize it by saying that we are going to get property tax relief for our citizens. This is just pure BS. I only wish that the State Supreme Court would have seen the glaring constitutional defects in the original legislation, but since that did not happen I'm just not sure what the next step will be in this "debate." I am not optimistic for the future of our Commonwealth.