In watching President Obama speak to the nation Tuesday night, I was struck by his overall theme of “what is fair for all Americans.”

Part of the President’s plan for cutting the deficit is to require millionaires such as Sen. Alexander, Sen. Corker and our current congressman, Chuck Fleischmann, to pay the same percentage of taxes that the middle- or working-class man or woman does. While individuals such as Mitt Romney have tax loopholes and offshore business accounts, the average workingman, who has no such advantages, is burdened with an unfair share of taxes each year.

Sen. Corker sits on the Banking and Finance Committee, which is responsible for the oil derivatives that have driven up the price of gas, possibly to $4 a gallon by midsummer, according to recent reports. The President asks us if this is fair.

In yet another fairness issue, Republicans want to make it more difficult for seniors, students and minorities to vote. The “voter fraud” bills that have passed in a number of states, Tennessee included, are a smoke screen for “voter suppression.”

As Democrats, we stand for making the democratic process accessible—and fair. The President stressed the importance of our education system. Republicans want a private education system for profit, while Democrats want high-quality public education for all Americans, including those who need to be retrained for the high-tech jobs of the future.

President Obama spoke of a future that includes all Americans—not just the wealthy and the lobbyists they can afford to pay. Ask yourself: which future sounds like the one envisioned by the founding fathers? I think the answer lies in the first three words of the Constitution: “We the People.”

Paul Smith
Chairman Hamilton County Democratic Party

* * *

Democrats never fail to amuse me when they try to paint opponents as elite and bad people for making their fortune. Over the years many immigrants have come to this country for that very reason. An opportunity to work hard, invest and make a future for their family.

Mr. Paul Smith wrote "Part of the President’s plan for cutting the deficit is to require millionaires such as Sen. Alexander, Sen. Corker and our current congressman, Chuck Fleischmann, to pay the same percentage of taxes that the middle- or working-class man or woman does." As I understand the facts, these men worked and earned the money they have made and paid the taxes that the IRS required.

Mr. Smith could have informed the readers that in the Senate there are 37 Democrats and 30 Republicans that are millionaires. One, Senator John Kerry and wife, according to the L.A. Times are worth between $900 million and $3.5 billion. Even when he was running for president he refused to give their worth. The three men Mr. Smith named combined have only fraction of the Kerry's worth. Senator Kerry and wife didn't earn their money they married it.

If you remember, this senator had his multi-million dollar yacht built out of his state. Many believe it was to avoid the state taxes which would have been $435,500.

Over the years a few of the most powerful Democrats in the senate have also been some of the most wealthy people in the country. Maybe they will step up to the plate and reveal their worth and the amount of taxes they pay. It is not a surprise that these extremely rich Democrats are very quiet on this issue. It is something to think about.

N.D. Kennedy Sr.
Ooltewah

* * *

Mr. Kennedy,
You mention a couple of points, but don't see the fact that they work together. Yes, there are many extremely wealthy Democrats. As a liberal, I have made good money, and I'd love to make more. So we do not hate wealth like your talk show hurlers of nonsense love to accuse us with. Democrats, yes, even these wealthy ones, are behind the idea of going back to the higher tax percentages they used to pay, because they know it is unfair that they pay so little in taxes while the suffering middle and lower classes pay much more. If you think that's fair, we would definitely disagree with you.

So that's the answer you can't see in your facts: yes, liberals are wealthy as well. No argument at all, ever. Everyone knows that. In fact, that should prove those conservatives like you who think we simply hate the wealthy wrong. When wealthy people are on board with this complaint, how can they be hating the fact that they are wealthy? They don't. They just see that the current tax code is stacked in favor of the wealthy, which is clearly unfair. Does the fact that you are fine with the middle class paying a higher rate of taxes mean that you hate the middle class or the poor? Maybe we should start accusing you of that. But we don't. Because we know it's not about hatred or class warfare at all. Or these wealthy Democrats would be at war with themselves and their friends, and they're not.

Tax rates for the very wealthy were much higher under President Reagan than they are now. Did it hurt job creation, investment, growth? No. Was it class warfare? No. (I'd call the death of the middle class, the poor getting poorer, and the new lack of upward mobility the real class warfare! These things spell the death of the American dream.) I hope you drop the bitter politics, the automatic knee-jerk opposition to any idea to the left of you, and ask yourself the simple question: if the very wealthy paid higher taxes in the '80s under Reagan, and did extremely well for themselves, and seemed perfectly content, and jobs were created by the millions, and businesses boomed, then why in the world, in our current economic mess, do you think that it's just peachy for the extremely wealthy to pay a far lower percentage in taxes than the rest of us who are suffering? How can you see that as fair? Many wealthy people even see the problem with that. Why don't you? That is my question for you.

(And to those who would counter with that elusive 35 percent rate, as I have heard quoted, you need to understand that that number only applies to "wages." However, the extremely wealthy usually make very little in "wages," intentionally, because it's worse for them to do so. They make their money in investments and interests and such, and those tax rates are currently extremely low or zero. That's what we are trying to point out to you. And after that, they have advantages and loopholes none of are allowed. Why is that okay? It isn't okay to many of them, so why is it to you? Just like you, I will always applaud that success with all sincerity, and I hope someday it will be my situation as well. But if it is, I will simply pay my fair share in taxes. And so should all Americans. Right?)

John Stegall

* * *

Fairness? In 2007, the top 25 percent of wage earners (those earning over $66,500 a year) paid 86.6 percent of all federal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent paid less than 3 percent. The notion that the “wealthy” aren’t paying their share is laughable.

Despite the Democrat Party’s professed aversion to private school, that’s where the Obama children go. That’s where Chelsea Clinton went. That’s where Amy Carter received the majority of her education and President Carter’s grandkids also attended private school. Lyndon Johnson’s girls went to private school. Nancy Pelosi went to private school. President Obama spent a whopping two years in public school. If it’s good enough for our kids, why isn’t public education good enough for theirs?

The Democrat Party protests voter ID laws but photo ID is also required to board a plane, cash a check, buy a beer, open a bank account, enter or leave the country, and to purchase a firearm. If requiring photo ID to vote disenfranchises the elderly, minorities, and students, aren’t their 2nd Amendment rights also being trampled by the same requirement? Where’s the Democrat outrage? Subverting the voting process through voter fraud is unfair.

A genuine concern for fairness would compel our leaders to balance the budget and slash ridiculous government spending. What’s fair about borrowing money today for our own selfish concerns and passing the debt on to the unborn kids of our unborn kids?

Jeff Young
Chattanooga