Tax proposal is reasonable

Re: "Big promises but little relief -- Officials say bills offer meager savings at high cost to services, growth," Aug. 3 news story.

Although I generally support more local control vs. state, I don't think the property tax proposals being floated in Austin are unreasonable. This story suggests that cities would face major cuts if any of these bills pass, but the proposals simply require cities to hold elections if the proposed taxes for a given year are set to grow over a threshold. This is not cuts, but checks on the rate of growth of government expenditures.

I don't understand why our local governments think that their revenue should grow the same as our property values. They are not related as far as I can tell. I understand costs go up every year, but just because property values rise 8 percent in a given year, that doesn't mean our cities or counties should get 8 percent more money to spend. I do agree with your reporter, though, that the real issue is school financing, and that our state government should really be tackling that problem instead.

Russ Olivier, Dallas

Give tax money back to schools

As recently as 1999, the state funded over 65 percent of public education, local property taxpayers funded 25 percent and the federal government chipped in 10 percent. Now, in 2017, on average the state contributions to public education are projected to be less than 37 percent, with local taxpayers carrying the burden. In the Dallas-Fort Worth area on average, the state funds less than 30 percent.

The problem isn't the local tax rate. The problem is that as our property appraisals increase, the state is pocketing the additional funds from that increase. Taxpayer dollars assessed for "neighborhood schools" are being used in other areas of the state budget that are not schools.

True property tax relief will result if the Legislature allows local school districts to lower the maintenance and operations tax rate to offset high property appraisals and have the flexibility to raise back to the voter-approved rate if needed without the cost of an election.

In this special session of the Legislature, House Bill 168 has been proposed to do this very thing. Reach out to your legislators and ask for their support. Give your local school trustees the opportunity to provide relief.

Tracy Fisher, Coppell

Step up on climate change

Re: "Report finds drastic impact -- Federal study directly contradicts Trump on human contribution," Tuesday news story.

It's concerning that when there's more than a 97 percent scientific consensus as well as the consensus of world leaders that climate change is real, happening and man-made, we're still hearing our Republican leadership fight over whether it is or not.

I'm very grateful that 26 Republicans in the House of Representatives have stepped up with 26 of their Democratic fellow representatives to join the House Climate Solutions Caucus to find bipartisan solutions.

Climate change has been growing so quickly this year that it's sure to continue. Hopefully a Texas representative like Rep. Kay Granger, Rep. Joe Barton, Rep. Kenny Marchant or Rep. Michael Burgess will join so Texas can have a voice in creating solutions to slow or reverse climate change without wrecking our economy. Carbon fee and dividend legislation would do that, as it's market-based and supported by economists from the left and right, as well as being the most effective first step, according to experts. The solutions exist; we need our leaders to step up.

Lance Luna, Arlington

Economy needs immigrants

Re: "Immigration plan splits Texans -- Dems oppose slashing legal entries; GOP support isn't absolute," Aug. 4 news story.

Our country has always prided itself on being a nation of immigrants. Our success is deeply rooted in the ability for any person, regardless of background or profession, to be able to contribute to our diverse economy. However, the RAISE Act would cut off a large group in that pipeline, and we simply can't afford that.

Congress needs to be focused on modernizing our immigration system, instead of restricting legal immigrants. The RAISE Act's proposal to eventually restrict legal immigration by half each year would have a devastating effect on our economy. According to the group New American Economy, immigrants are more likely to be of working age than native-born citizens and are filling much needed gaps in our workforce. The 1.2 million immigrants in Texas hold over $25 billion in spending power, much of which goes back to benefit native-born citizens. Do we really want to limit such important contributors?

Our economy needs to continue expanding, and immigrants are the key to this growth. I encourage Congress to take a different approach to reform.

Ann Massey Badmus, Frisco

Reducing immigration is foolish

In 1798, because those in power feared losing influence, the Alien and Sedition Acts became law. Most were aimed at immigrants, making citizenship difficult to obtain and allowing for deportation.

Much of the motivation behind the recent proposal to curb legal immigration is the same. Elected officials are determined to retain power for their good ol' boy network, into perpetuity. However, the United States needs immigrants to keep the economy strong and to help support the ever-growing number of retirees. Our nation's birth rate is low, while people are living longer. On a practical level, it is foolish to reduce legal immigration.

More deeply, immigrants have always brought a vitality and richness that is incalculable. I would urge everyone to visit a citizenship class, where immigrants are enthusiastically learning more about the United States than most "real Americans" will ever know. We are a better nation because of immigration and diversity. We must not let fear drive policy. We must not allow self-centered, power-hungry politicians to lead us astray. In welcoming legal immigrants who long to live here, everyone wins.

Scott Kimball, McKinney

Jeffress, love thy neighbor

Re: "Jeffress: God gives Trump authority to take out Kim," Tuesday news story.

Pastor Robert Jeffress says the president has the moral authority to take out North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, based on Romans 13. (In a separate interview, when asked if he would encourage the president to follow the Sermon on the Mount, he replied, "absolutely not.")

Is this marvelous sermon from Jesus what Jeffress means by "mushy rhetoric" in this article? I would encourage Jeffress to go a little farther down in Romans 13 to verses 8-10: "Owe no one anything, except to love one another: for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments ... are summed up in this word, Love your neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law."

I am distressed that a minister of God would encourage a war that would take out thousands of innocents by picking a few verses to support his view. Please, Rev. Jeffress, relieve yourself of the burden of speaking for God to President Donald Trump. God is capable of speaking directly to him if he is willing to listen.

Carol McNatt, Athens

A setup for war?

The American public is regularly told that U.S. intelligence agencies have extreme difficulty collecting reliable information on the North Korean government and its military activities. Yet recently, presumably via these agencies, there have been media reports that North Korea has miniaturized a nuclear weapon for assembly on an ICBM and also that the warhead of a recent North Korean test missile likely shattered upon re-entry.

Wait a minute. Are these accounts reliable? Moreover, why has this apparently classified material been distributed to the media?

In past decades, for various problematic political reasons, U.S. presidents have many times gone to war. Invasions into Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. And a bombing of Libya. Some of these incursions have rendered positive results from an American perspective, others not. Is America now being set up for yet another war?

Ed Kominski, Weatherford