Issue 27 gets support of religious groups
UPDATE: A third religious groupo, the Metropolitan Area Religious Coalition of Cincinnati, has also endorsed. Here's the press release.
The Baptist Ministers’ Conference, the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance and the Faith Community Alliance jointly are endorsing Issue 27, the sales tax increase to build a new jail and fund public safety programs.
The sales tax proponents say the religious leaders support Issue 27 because "it is a comprehensive safety plan that addresses root causes of crime and high rates of recidivism, in addition to improving enforcement and corrections."
"Specifically, the ministers applaud the efforts in the Comprehensive Safety Plan to address at-risk youth, issues of addiction and mental illness, and the unacceptably high percentage of inmates who re-offend after serving a sentence."
The groups represent many churches working throughout Cincinnati. They did not endorse last year’s jail ballot issue, or prior efforts, according to the Issue 27 campaign, because those plans only were to build jails, and did nothing to address root causes of crime.
"We're thrilled to receive the support of leaders who work everyday, at the grassroots level, to lift the spirit and hope of thousands of members of the community," said Kathleen Binns, Issue 27 campaign manager. "They've studied the plan closely, and we're honored to receive their endorsement."
endorse.doc
18 Comments:
the rumor they'd been bought has now been confirmed
Imagine that, a bunch of religious leaders trying to influence more votes. Stay out of my wallet and out of my church. Vote NO on issue 27.
Amazing how the libs' caterwauling about "seperation of church & state" and "freedom of religion" vanishes when churches support a tax hike or when Barack Obama is the one doing the campaigning.
When Michael Earl Patton railed against the jail tax at the AMOS candidate forum he got thunderous applause!
Too bad the biased Enquirer is too cheap to send a reporter to cover a progressive religous organization that works for social justice instead of money for themselves!
Religious organizations are tax exempt and don't have to pay any sales tax anyway. That makes it free to them. Why not endorse it?
Aren't these groups all tax-exempt charities? I'm always skeptical when folks who don't pay anything get vocal about how much more money ought to come out of my pockets.
Issue 27...200 million dollar jail...700 million dollar tax. Until they reconcile those two figures we have to vote NO.
None of these groups are charities, they're organizations. And the idea that these men can be bought is ludicrous. Obviously you don't know any of the individual members or you wouldn't say such ridiculous things.
"They've studied the plan closely, and we're honored to receive their endorsement."
How is it the rhyming reverends have studied the plan & the balance of the taxpayers are waiting to see the plan? I've yet to see the sure-fire program that's in place to prevent repeat offenders from criming again.
Ah, another election season. That line between church & state gets blurred again. Another group of tax-exempt freeloaders with their hands in the pockets of working people dictating policy. Take away their tax-free status & they'll all be singing a different hymn!
These organizations don't have to pay sales taxes - but the people leading and working for them and making the decisions sure do - so drop the stupidity of the argument that they are not affected.
Mark Miller (see above) is exactly right and the tax pushers did their usual thing:
1) called his question about charities "ridiculous" and "stupid".
2) again ignored the elephant-in- the-room of the tacked-on $500 million.
Only way this passes is if the majority don't have the time and/or brains to really look at & think about the "proposal".
Mark Miller needs a crayon explanation, or he is just misleading the public. Would Honda build a plant in Greensburg without accounting for operating costs, would the Health Alliance build a faciity in Westchester and not account for the operating costs, would Hamilton County build a jail addressing the needs of the community for next 30 years without operating costs?
Kudos to Portune and Pepper for showing the taxpayer the full cost and not irresponsibly ignoring the operating costs like Heimlich and DeWine did last year.
Obviously, Miller has never managed a major project or run a complex entitiy. I am willing to bet he a JV-team lawyer with the ranks of Brinkman, Finney and Heimlich. Yes, that was a personnal attack.
Issue 27...200 million dollar jail...700 million dollar tax. Until they reconcile those two figures we have to vote NO.
It's not hard to figure out if you bother to do any of your own research.
They clearly saw the "value" in the plan.
It looks like $80 million for social programs. That means scores of programs, all with $50,000 directors. The promise of all those social programs dollars is what has all of those "religious leaders" lining up at the pay window. The effect on our neighborhoods will be further devastation. Halfway houses and treatment centers will sprout like toadstools, bringing thousands of additional criminals into the area. Look at the makeup of the board that chooses which programs get the money- that's where the action is.
10:24 anon - appreciate that you acknowledged your personal attack.
I've asked and still ask "we already have jail operating expenses in the budget. Why do we need a additonal tax to run the "new, improved & consolidated jails."
VOTE NO ON ISSUE 27!
VOTE YES ON ISSUE 27!
Praise Jesus and pass the ammunition!
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.
<< Home