Readers write

Georgia tax cut hurts people in need

Republican candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, and other positions are all proposing massive tax cuts. None of them tells us how they would make up for the lost revenue or which programs would be cut because of it.

This year, the Georgia General Assembly passed and Gov. Brian Kemp signed a bill reducing state income taxes. This is a much more modest tax cut than those being proposed.

Even with smaller cuts, we can now see the cost of these cuts: no summer food program for schoolchildren, needed help for veterans was eliminated, state retirees fall further behind, planned help for foster children will not happen, etc.

As for the benefit of these cuts: 74% of the tax breaks will go to the upper 20% of households, according to the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. In short, people in need will suffer so that the rich can become richer.

LARRY AUERBACH, ATLANTA

Judicial watchdog needs more bite

Re: “Supreme Court challengers violated judicial rules, state watchdog alleges,” AJC.

The hypocrisy of the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Committee runs deep. Their ruling, which serves to restrain candidates’ free speech, is purely partisan.

When the other side controls all the levers of government, it is easy to “wink, wink, nod, nod” your way into controlling the judgeships without saying anything publicly. Has the committee weighed in on the practice of judges stepping down before their terms end to allow the Republican governor to appoint a replacement Judge?

We know that once in place, there is tremendous power of incumbency in judicial elections. They are tipping the scales, but the committee says nothing about the ethics of the judges consistently stepping down early. We see you and know what you are doing.

CHERI ROBINSON, BROOKHAVEN

After 103 years, it’s time for ERA ratification

The ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, granting women the right to vote, culminated nearly a century of advocacy.

Notably, 103 years have passed since the initial proposal of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in 1923, aimed at ensuring women’s equality before the law, yet it remains unratified.

Two aspects warrant consideration: Why have women not universally demanded their equal rights? Why do men, predominantly those in positions of power in state and federal legislatures, appear threatened by the prospect of gender equality?

Women’s leadership in major countries worldwide underscores the notion that American men may feel insecure about competing with women on an equal footing.