|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
Hidden with code "Duplicate post" |
|
News :: Elections & Legislation |
|
Tom Berns' Definition Of "working Family" Is Making Over $100,000 Per Year |
Current rating: 0 |
by Nancy Dietrich-Rybicki
(No verified email address) |
04 Nov 2002
|
|
A phone call to Tom Berns' campaign office reveals that "Naomi Jakobsson supports an increase in the state's income tax" is taken from a past survey done stating that Jakobsson supports a 1% tax increase on families making $100,000 or more. |
I received a flier the other day in the mail from Tom Berns' campaign stating that "Naomi Jakobsson is having trouble telling the truth." The first item she is supposedly having trouble telling the truth about is (taken from the literature): 1) Naomi Jakobsson supports an increase in the state's income tax. No matter how many negative ads she might run, Naomi is on record supporting an income tax increase on WORKING FAMILIES AND SENIORS (author's emphasis).
The flier went on to state that "all of this material is available at Tom Berns' campaign by calling (217) 344-9340 or visiting www.tomberns.com. A trip to the Internet revealed that this information was nowhere to be found on www.tomberns.com. So I made a phone call to the Tom Berns' campaign office.
I asked the gentleman answering the phone what exactly was meant by this statement. He said that according to a survey, Jakobsson supports a 1% income tax increase on families making $100,000 OR MORE!!! (again, author's emphasis).
At first I thought this was a joke. When I hear the term "working families and seniors," I assume this means people struggling to make ends meet; working paycheck to paycheck, or trying to get by on Social Security. Surely he, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't consider "working families and seniors" as people making over $100,000? But it isn't a joke.
I told the gentleman on the phone that I can't believe that Berns actually believes this (I wish I would have told him that as a Catholic, doesn't Berns believe in preferential treatment for the poor? but I didn't think of that until after the conversation). I continued to explain that my husband & I make far less than this and consider ourselves middle class; I can't imagine a family making $100,000 a year struggling to make ends meet. Every time I tried to make a comment refuting $100,000 as a "working family"'s wage, the man on the other end kept saying, over and over, "This isn't a neutral call, is it? This isn't a neutral call, is it?" Well, no, it wasn't a neutral call, which I told him it wasn't. Afterwards I was wondering, isn't Tom Berns my representative? Am I not allowed to call his office & ask relevant questions? Does his office only accept neutral (i.e., pro-Berns) calls? This answer from the gentleman was probably all he could think of to say, so I'll let him off the hook. (By the way, he hung up on me). But I left him my phone # so Mr. Berns can call & explain with a straight face how I am supposed to consider a family making $100,000 a "working family." I look forward to this conversation. |
