Clinton campaign paying for votes
Can you buy a vote?
That's the question that apparently the Clinton presidential campaign has already answered. An e-mail was sent to students at Winthrop University saying that the Clinton campaign will pay canvassers $1,000 a month if they work from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. during the week and Saturday until 6 p.m. The question is, why? Why should a campaign feel the need to pay students to canvass?
Canvassing is a part of campaigning for a person you truly believe in. Hiring people and paying them totally defeats this purpose. I am a college student and a registered voter, and I know that many college students can use $1,000 a month. How effective will this strategy be? Yes, they will get labor but in the end will those hired canvassers really vote for her or are they just there for the money?
I believe that the latter is true. I think that this is a despicable tactic to get college students to help a campaign. I don't know if a similar e-mail or notice was sent to the general public, but of course they targeted college students because they know we could use their money. This, in my opinion, is unethical, and if you truly want to make a difference in the future of America, you should not be coerced in helping a candidate by targeting a group of people by simply placing a dollar amount on something that you need done.
Sales tax offers taxpayers a choice
In your recent editorial "Savings small for most," The Herald once again engages in journalistic malpractice. While castigating property tax relief and labeling the shift to sales taxes as "regressive," you completely ignore the real reason for minimal savings on property tax bills -- the local school boards.
In the York school district, the bond levy increased from 32 mils to 78 mils, or a whopping 144 percent, a tax increase of $219 on a median value home in the district. Amazingly, The Herald wrote in favor of this increase, which affects every homeowner.
Or what about the 1 cent county sales tax for roads? Did the editors denounce it and encourage a no vote because it was "regressive"? Of course not. The bottom line is, sales taxes offer citizens a choice. Necessities such as food are not taxed at the same rate and medical prescriptions are exempt.
Property taxes, on the other hand, are taken from homeowners under threat of having their homes confiscated; this is obviously the system The Herald editors prefer.
There is another name for this when anyone other than government agencies engage in it. It is called extortion.